scf_list_systems

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful scope information and the optional vendor filter, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or return shape, which would add behavioral transparency beyond the annotation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence communicates the purpose and optional filter with no waste. Every word contributes to tool selection or invocation.

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 read-only list tool with two parameters, one required, the description plus schema is complete enough for an agent to select and call it correctly. No output schema is present, and details like pagination or returned fields would be nice-to-have, but they are not necessary for 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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with 100% coverage, including UUID formats and where to obtain the IDs. The description's 'Optionally filter by linked vendor' adds slight clarity about optionality and relationship, but it is largely redundant given the schema's vendor_id description.

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 identifies the verb ('List') and resource ('the organization's infrastructure systems'), and further clarifies what those systems are: 'the tools and platforms that implement security capabilities.' It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling scf_list_system_catalog, so it misses the top score.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: to list the organization's infrastructure systems, with an optional vendor filter. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient for a straightforward read-only list operation.

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