list_configurations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it returns a dictionary of configuration names, with no information about side effects, error conditions, or behavior when no document is active. This is insufficient for a zero-annotation tool, even if simple.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main action, but includes a return-type docstring that could be inferred from the schema. It is efficient but not extremely concise.

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's simplicity (zero parameters, output schema exists), the description explains why the list is useful (selecting a stable target). This is sufficient context for an agent to understand when to call it.

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, and the schema has 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining the result's purpose, meeting the baseline for no-parameter tools.

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 tool's action using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('configuration names for the active SolidWorks document'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on features, sketches, or exports.

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 when to use the tool ('so callers can select a stable target before invoking feature or export operations'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The usage context is implied but not fully elaborated.

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