apic_get_tenants

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool returns a list of tenants with specific fields and alphabetical sorting, indicating a safe read-only operation. Does not mention potential limitations or authentication needs, but sufficient for a simple listing.

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?

Two succinct sentences: first states purpose, second details output format. No unnecessary words. Highly efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, but description comprehensively covers return fields and sorting. For a simple list tool with no parameters, it provides complete context for agent to understand and use the tool.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter info, but none needed. Adequate for no-parameter tool.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'List' and resource 'all tenants configured on the Cisco APIC'. Specifies returned fields (name, DN, description, status) and sorting, distinguishing it from siblings like apic_get_contracts or apic_get_epgs.

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 explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. Usage is implied (to list all tenants), but no exclusions or context provided for sibling tools.

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