Swagger: List Portals

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: results are filtered by the user's role (at least designer at product or organization level). This gives the agent a clear expectation of visibility without needing to call the 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, front-loaded, and directly conveys the core purpose and an important filtering rule. The 'Toolset: Portals' line is minor but helps contextualize the domain without adding meaningful overhead.

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, read-only list operation with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns and under what conditions, which is sufficient 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed since the input schema is empty and schema description coverage is effectively complete.

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 states the operation ('Search for available portals within Swagger') and the specific resource (portals). It also adds a meaningful scope: only portals where the user has at least a designer role are returned. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like swagger_get_portal, though the plural 'portals' and the role filter make the listing intent fairly clear.

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 implies this tool is used to find portals the user can access and is appropriate for listing rather than retrieving a single portal. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like swagger_get_portal or swagger_list_portal_products, so usage guidance is mostly inferential.

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