x_config_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adds some context by labeling the data as 'non-secret' and the operation as 'inspect', implying safety. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, filter semantics, authentication requirements, or whether all rows are returned when no filters are applied.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage context.

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?

With four optional parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves critical invocation details unexplained. While it names what the tool lists, it does not clarify how the scope parameters or prefix affect results, nor does it mention pagination or return structure (no output schema exists). This is insufficient for reliable correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (prefix, scopeUserId, scopeTenantId, scopeAccountId). The phrase 'tenant/principal' loosely maps to scopes but provides no specific meaning or interaction details, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List tenant/principal Postgres configuration rows'. It further specifies what the tool inspects: 'persisted non-secret defaults, profile settings, and runtime behavior flags', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like x_config_get, x_config_set, and x_config_delete.

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 clear context for when to use: 'Use this to inspect persisted non-secret defaults, profile settings, and runtime behavior flags.' It implies a read-only inspection use case and excludes secrets, but does not explicitly name alternatives such as x_config_get or state when not to use it.

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