List IT Glue Configurations

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying that filtering is optional and listing returns paginated results (implied via page/page_size), which are useful behavioral details beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, explanatory paragraph, and bullet-pointed args/returns. It is appropriately sized for a tool with many parameters, though the args section is somewhat redundant given the schema. Every sentence adds value, but the bullet points could be more concise.

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 the tool's complexity (16 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it explains the purpose, provides usage context, and lists parameters. However, it lacks details on return values beyond 'List of configurations with details,' which could be more specific given no output schema. Annotations cover safety well, but more behavioral context (e.g., pagination limits) would help.

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 fully documents all 16 parameters. The description lists parameters with brief notes (e.g., 'partial match' for name, 'default' values), but these mostly repeat or summarize schema info without adding significant new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('configurations (devices/assets) in IT Glue'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'itglue_get_configuration' (singular retrieval) and 'itglue_create_configuration' (creation). It also explains what configurations represent (IT assets like servers, workstations, etc.), adding domain context.

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 clear context for usage ('with optional filtering') and implies when to use it (for listing configurations vs. getting a single one or creating/updating). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, though the sibling list suggests alternatives like 'itglue_get_configuration' for single items.

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