aem_bundle_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List OSGi bundles' and does not mention that the tool can query multiple instances, supports pagination via limit/offset, is read-only, or what the response format looks like. The agent has no information about side effects, prerequisites, or output behavior.

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, tight sentence with no redundancy: 'List OSGi bundles from AEM instances'. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. It earns its place but could have added a bit more useful context (e.g., multi-instance or filtering) without becoming verbose, so it is not a perfect 5.

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?

This tool has six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is too minimal to tell the agent what the response will look like or how aliases/instances are used, while the complex parameter set suggests a richer explanation is needed. The description leaves important context about multiple instances, filtering, and pagination entirely unstated.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning. Each parameter like aliases, instances, nameFilter, and stateFilter already has a reasonable schema description. The description itself does not enrich the parameters, but the schema adequately covers 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 states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('OSGi bundles'), and scope ('from AEM instances'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like aem_bundle_start/stop and from other resource lists like aem_component_list and aem_configuration_list. The word 'list' also separates it from aem_bundle_details, which implies a single-bundle focus.

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: when you want to enumerate OSGi bundles, use this tool. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives, such as aem_bundle_details for a specific bundle or aem_logs_search for diagnostics. There are no stated exclusions or alternative routing, so usage context is only inferable.

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