hcloud_list_scaling_configs

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description contributes nothing beyond that: it does not discuss cross-region scope, how `limit` truncates the result set, whether pagination tokens exist, or what the response contains — all behaviorally relevant for an open-world cloud list call.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is appropriate for a simple list tool. It is terse to the point that the required `region` scoping and the existence of a `limit` cap are never surfaced in prose, though nothing is redundant.

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?

For a two-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the essentials are almost there, but with no output schema the description should at least hint at what a 'scaling configuration' record contains and how results are bounded. As written, an agent cannot tell what it will receive or how this differs from the other scaling-list siblings.

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% with both `region` (required) and `limit` ('Max results') documented inline, so the structured schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no extra meaning such as allowed region names, default page size, or whether `limit` caps or pages; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 plus resource ('List ... configurations') and expands the 'AS' abbreviation to 'Auto Scaling', so an agent knows this returns a collection of scaling configurations. It does not distinguish this from adjacent siblings such as hcloud_list_scaling_groups, hcloud_list_scaling_policies, or hcloud_show_scaling_config, which is why it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (for example, that a region is required), and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer on its own that hcloud_show_scaling_config is for details of a single config and that hcloud_list_scaling_groups covers a different resource.

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