list_infoareas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it implies a read-only list operation, it does not disclose that the 'all' claim is subject to max_results (default 500), nor does it mention any pagination, ordering, or cost implications. This is a notable gap given the tool may not actually return all results.

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 that front-load the action and provide a brief context for InfoAreas. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter) and the existence of an output schema (which covers return structure), the description is largely complete for calling it correctly. It misses explicit usage guidance (e.g., when to prefer this over search), but that is already penalized in usage_guidelines. For a simple list tool, the essential information is present.

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 single parameter max_results is fully documented in the schema (description and default value), giving schema coverage of 100%. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter's behavior, such as how it affects the result set. Therefore, the baseline of 3 applies—the schema already handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 action ('List all InfoAreas') with a specific resource ('InfoAreas in the BW system'). It also explains what InfoAreas are, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like list_infoobjects or get_infoarea_contents.

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 usage is implied: if you need a list of all InfoAreas, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like search_bw_objects or get_infoarea_contents, so there is no direct exclusion or guidance on when not to use it. This is acceptable but not explicit.

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