merovingian_consumers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists consumers and offers optional filters. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is (despite the presence of an output schema), whether pagination or authentication is required, or any side effects. The minimal description leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise (two sentences plus a parameter list) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the parameter list more clearly or using bullet points, but it is still efficient and readable.

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 has 3 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally complete: it states the purpose and the filter parameters. However, it does not describe the return values (the output schema is not detailed), any prerequisites, or the broader context of how consumers relate to endpoints. For a straightforward listing tool, this may be adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the schema itself provides no parameter explanations beyond type and title. The description adds brief textual explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'Filter by producer repository name (optional)'), which clarifies their purpose. However, the explanations are minimal and do not specify valid values, formats, or constraints, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 tool's purpose: 'List consumers of endpoints.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like merovingian_add_consumer (which adds consumers) and merovingian_scan (which likely scans for something else). However, the description does not explain what 'consumers' are in this context, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention when it is appropriate to list consumers, nor does it indicate when one should use alternatives like merovingian_add_consumer or merovingian_impact. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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