list_solutions

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: managed solutions are hidden unless include_managed=true and name_filter is a case-insensitive substring. This discloses default visibility and filter behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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 dense sentences; the first lists output fields and the second covers the two non-obvious parameters. There is no filler or repetition.

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 read-only list tool with optional filters and readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description covers the operation, visible data, and key filtering behavior. The main gaps are lack of output schema details and no explicit guidance on how to specify the environment or handle pagination/ordering.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains name_filter (case-insensitive substring on unique or display name) and include_managed (reveals managed solutions), but leaves the environment parameter effectively unexplained beyond 'allowlisted environment'.

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 resource ('solutions') and enumerates the returned fields (unique name, display name, version, managed flag, publisher), making the operation concrete. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools that list other resource types or operate on a single solution.

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 offers no guidance about when to choose this tool over related siblings such as solution_components, export_solution, or diff_solutions. It explains filter and include_managed behavior, but that is parameter usage, not tool-selection guidance.

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