mgmt_operations_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'List counter operations' only implies a read-only operation; it does not disclose auth/ownership requirements, response format, pagination behavior, or that it is limited to a given counter's operations. These are meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 short and front-loaded with a documentation URL and a one-line summary. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation with one required parameter; the URL is arguably generic, but it does not add significant bloat.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description should clarify what the operation returns, how a counter operation is represented, and whether listing has constraints. The schema explains the input parameters but the description leaves the behavior and output semantics mostly to the agent's inference.

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 100%, so the parameters counterId, pretty, and callback are already documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning about how the parameters affect the returned operations or how counterId scopes the list, but per the coverage baseline, no extra parameter detail is strictly necessary.

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 identifies the action ('List') and resource ('counter operations') and is distinguishable from sibling tools like mgmt_operation_get or mgmt_operation_create, which are individual operation CRUD actions. However, it is still minimal: 'operations' is not further clarified within the description itself, so it is more effective in the context of its sibling names than standalone.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to call this tool versus mgmt_operation_get or other mgmt list tools. The documentation URL is generic and does not help disambiguate use cases or state exclusions like 'use this to list all operations, vs get for a single operation'.

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