config_list

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

While annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, the description adds valuable context: configs include actual data (base64-encoded) because they are not sensitive, and it explains the return format. This goes beyond simple safety flags and helps the agent anticipate output content.

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 yet dense, with clear sections for description, args, and returns. Every sentence provides meaningful information—no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple list tool with one optional filter, the description covers prerequisites, filter syntax, output shape, and data sensitivity. It is self-sufficient even without an output schema, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 'filters' parameter is described with its purpose ('Narrow the list'), default behavior ('omit to return every config'), and valid filter keys. Since the schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), the description fully compensates and adds essential meaning.

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 clearly states 'List swarm configs' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from related tools like config_inspect and config_remove. It also contrasts with secrets, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly notes the need for a swarm manager, lists valid filter keys, and instructs users to use config_inspect for fetching a single config. This provides clear when-to-use and alternatives, going beyond a simple statement of function.

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