vast42_list_icon_click_fallback_images

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'List all' but does not mention pagination behavior (despite limit/offset parameters), potential large result sets, or that multiple calls may be needed to retrieve truly 'all' items. This could mislead an agent into expecting a single comprehensive response when the schema implies paginated results.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource. It earns its place without unnecessary words, making it appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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?

Despite being a simple list tool, the description lacks important context: it does not clarify how pagination works to actually retrieve all items, and there is no output schema to inform the agent about the returned data structure. The phrase 'List all' combined with pagination params is ambiguous, and without annotations or an output schema, the description is not fully complete for a reliable agent 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 input schema fully documents both parameters with descriptions ('Max results to return (default 100, max 100)' and 'Pagination offset'), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description itself provides no additional semantic context beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 VAST 4.2 icon click fallback images' uses a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('VAST 4.2 icon click fallback images'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like vast42_get_icon_click_fallback_image, vast42_create_icon_click_fallback_image, etc. The 'all' also signals a plural listing operation versus singular get/create/update/delete tools.

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 usage context or alternative guidance is provided. It does not mention when to use this list tool versus the get tool for a single fallback image, nor any prerequisites or typical scenarios. The description simply states what it does without any when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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