list_automations

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It states the listing behavior and the key field (_id), but does not disclose output shape, ordering, pagination, or whether it returns full configuration details or only metadata. The read-only nature is reasonably implied by 'list', but not fully elaborated.

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?

Two short sentences, each earning its place. The list action and server scope are front-loaded, and the downstream relationship to run_automation is stated without any filler.

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 zero-parameter listing tool, the description is complete: it defines what is listed, from where, and what the returned _id is used for. The lack of an output schema is acceptable because the description already identifies the critical field an agent would need.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so there is little to document. The description adds useful semantic context by linking the returned _id to run_automation's config_id, which helps an agent understand the value it will receive.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and a clear resource ('automation configurations defined on the server'). It also anchors the tool's purpose by explaining that the returned _id is the config_id consumed by run_automation, which distinguishes it from related automation tools.

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 clearly implies when this tool is useful: when you need the _id to pass to run_automation. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_automation or state when not to use it, but it provides clear operational context without being misleading.

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