config_list

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: configs are not treated as sensitive so Spec.Data is included base64-encoded, and the output is a list of full config documents. This covers the meaningful behavior for a read-only list operation, though it omits error/pagination details that are less critical here.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and well-structured: a one-line core statement, a differentiating note, a filter-keys sentence, then clean Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information (what it lists, prerequisite, and alternative) is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers scope, prerequisite, filtering options, return format, and the sibling for single-config access. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema's only parameter (filters) has zero description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It compensates by explaining the parameter's purpose ('Narrow the list; omit to return every config') and enumerating valid filter keys (id, name, names, label with key or key=value), which is meaningfully more than the schema's bare object type.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('List swarm configs') and states the prerequisite ('requires a swarm manager'). It distinguishes this tool from secret_list (configs include actual data, not treated as sensitive) and from config_inspect (single config by id/name), making sibling differentiation clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: the swarm manager prerequisite, valid filter keys, the option to omit filters to return everything, and the alternative tool for fetching a single config by id/name (config_inspect). An agent can decide correctly without opening the schema.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.