list_portals

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering safety. However, the description's claim of listing 'all' configurations is contradicted by the limit parameter (default 25), and it does not disclose pagination or the fact that results are limited. This is a misleading behavioral trait not disclosed by 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It clearly states the action and target.

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 is simple with two optional parameters and good annotations, but the description leaves gaps: it fails to mention pagination/limit behavior, return format, or how it differs from other portal-related list tools. The 'all' claim is also inaccurate.

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 100% for both parameters (limit and query), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic meaning for the parameters, but the schema already sufficiently documents them.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'Service Portal configurations', with scope 'available in the instance'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like list_portal_pages or list_portal_widgets by targeting configurations specifically.

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 usage for enumerating Service Portal configurations, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative list_portal_* tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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