get_all_infrastructure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying that returns include standard fields 'even if empty' and returns a 'complete infrastructure table'. This goes beyond what annotations provide, but does not mention potential volume limits or pagination 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by purpose. Every sentence is informative and earns its place. No wasted words.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It states what the tool returns and its typical use cases, enabling an AI to select and invoke it appropriately.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema fully describes the parameters. The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, correctly applied.

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 'Get all infrastructure entries', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_infrastructure_by_type by emphasizing 'all' and 'including standard fields (even if empty)'. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'for session bundling and status reports'. It implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like get_infrastructure_by_type. No alternatives are mentioned, so it stops short of a 5.

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