ise_ers_list_portal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description notes pagination behavior ('Paginated') but doesn't disclose whether this is a safe read operation, what the default page size is, or any rate limiting or authentication requirements. The pagination mention is useful but minimal.

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 one short sentence - efficient and to the point with no wasted words. However, at only 5 words it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness. The front-loaded structure is good but minimal.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description is relatively sparse. A list operation is straightforward, but the description doesn't clarify what fields are returned, whether results are sorted, or how pagination behaves (offset vs page-based). The deployment parameter is well-documented in the schema, which helps. For a simple filtered-list tool this is borderline adequate but thin.

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 coverage is only 33% - of the 3 parameters (page, size, deployment), only 'deployment' has a description. The description text itself adds no parameter information beyond 'Paginated', which weakly implies the page/size parameters exist. The deployment parameter description is in the schema and is helpful (references ise_list_deployments), but the description doesn't supplement any of it.

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 'List all Portals. Paginated.' clearly identifies the verb (list), resource (Portals), and scope (all). It distinguishes from sibling get_portal and search_portal tools. While concise, it doesn't mention any supporting context beyond pagination.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like ise_ers_get_portal or ise_ers_search_portal. The description provides no context for when listing all is preferable to searching or getting a single portal, though pagination is mentioned.

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