List known systems and software

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it states it is a read-only mirror, mentions the source of authority, notes that it returns only summary columns, and discloses the 'unconfigured' edge-case behavior. These go beyond the structured annotations and help an agent predict output and limitations.

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 three sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose and filters are front-loaded in the first sentence, the authority/read-only caveat is second, and the distinction from describe_resource plus the unconfigured behavior is last. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is efficient.

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 list tool with optional filters and no required parameters, the description is complete. It explains the output granularity (summary columns), points to the alternative for full rows, clarifies authority, and covers the edge case of an unconfigured inventory. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and interpret results.

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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (host, type, limit), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema says, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the 100% schema coverage.

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 ('Lists'), a clear resource ('resource inventory' of systems/software), and the optional filters. It distinguishes itself from controlcenter_describe_resource by noting it returns only summary columns, making its purpose and scope unambiguous even without reading the 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?

It explicitly names the alternative tool (controlcenter_describe_resource) and the condition for choosing it ('for the full row'). It also notes the authority caveat, which clarifies that this tool is a non-authoritative mirror, guiding an agent to seek authoritative data elsewhere if needed.

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