list_configs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds relevant behavior about default scope aggregation and optional content inclusion, but leaves open whether results are paginated, capped, or ordered, which matters for a cross-scope listing. Useful but not rich beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and what scope it covers, followed by the alternative-tool pointer. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 read-only, four-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers scope defaults, optional content, and the alternative tool. It hints at returned fields but does not describe the response shape (IDs, draft markers, content structure) that an agent would need without an output schema, a modest remaining gap.

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 schema already explains type, service, with_data, and with_drafts, including enum-ish type examples and the 'global' service convention. The description restates the same fields at a high level and adds no format or edge-case detail. Minor inconsistency: it mentions a 'name' field that is not an input parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List custom config snippets") plus the returned fields (service, type, name, draft flag) and the default scope ("across every scope unless filtered"). It also names the sibling that does something different (get_config for reading one snippet in full), so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes full single-snippet reads to get_config and implies this tool is for browsing/filtering. It states the default scope behavior (every scope unless filtered), which shapes when to reach for it. It does not state when listing would be a bad choice (e.g. very large result sets) or mention pagination limits.

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