mgmt_counters_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'List available counters.' It does not mention read-only semantics, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or default sorting/offset behavior.

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 extremely short and front-loaded with the core action. The documentation URL is ancillary but not distracting; the text avoids tautology and redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should provide more context about return shape, pagination, and authentication. It omits details that matter for a list endpoint, such as how results are ordered, paged, or scoped to the user.

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 has 100% coverage, documenting all 15 parameters with descriptions, so the description need not repeat parameter details. However, it adds no extra meaning about how parameters interact, such as pagination defaults or filter composition.

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 phrase 'List available counters' uses a specific verb and resource and clearly communicates that this is a collection operation. It is readily distinguishable from siblings like mgmt_counter_get, mgmt_counter_create, and other mgmt_*_list 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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mgmt_counter_get or other list tools. There are no exclusions, conditions, or context signals to help an agent decide between this and similar management endpoints.

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