list_configs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies scope ('current instance' and 'world's serverconfig if named') and the word 'List' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not state the response format, whether the query parameter affects behavior, or any edge cases.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the parenthetical adds the optional world behavior efficiently. Slight clarity could be improved, but overall it is well-structured.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough. It omits the meaning of the query parameter, does not describe the return value, and provides no guidance on expected behavior. An agent would need additional information to invoke this tool with confidence.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains the world parameter by referencing a world's serverconfig, but the query parameter is completely unexplained. An agent cannot determine what query should contain or how it affects the listing.

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 the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource: 'config files on the current instance', and optionally a world's serverconfig. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_config, edit_config, and list_worlds, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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 when to use this tool — when listing config files for the current instance or a named world's serverconfig. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as read_config or edit_config for viewing or modifying file contents, leaving some inference to the agent.

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