aem_configuration_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation and resource, without saying whether output is a summary or detailed configs, whether pagination via offset/limit is applied, whether authentication is required, or any side effects. 'List' implies read-only, but that is not explicitly guaranteed.

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, focused sentence that starts with the action verb and names the target resource. There is no redundant wording. It could have included more context, but it is structurally clean and front-loaded.

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 schema fully documents the five parameters, so an agent can construct a syntactically valid call. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what the returned list contains, how pagination behaves, or how multiple instances are handled. These are clear gaps for running the tool correctly and understanding the result.

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%, meaning every parameter already has a description such as limit, offset, aliases, instances, and pidFilter. The description itself adds no new parameter-level meaning, but since the schema fully documents all parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action verb ('List') and a clear resource ('OSGi configurations') with a source ('AEM instances'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling configuration tools like get, create, update, delete, and unbind, as well as from bundle/component list 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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this list tool over `aem_configuration_get` for a single configuration, nor about relationships to configuration create/update/delete tools. The intended use is implied by the tool name, but the description does not actively route the agent to the correct alternative.

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