list_cabinets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral scope ('all Cabinets configured on the Figranium server') and specifies the output fields (IDs, names, item counts), which is useful given there is no output schema.

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 front-loaded sentences provide the action, scope, return content, and intended use case with no redundancy or filler. Every clause adds value.

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 simple no-argument, no-output-schema list tool, the description is complete: it names the resource, the defining clarification ('durable download queues), the returned fields, and the practical use case for finding a Cabinet ID.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the input schema already fully captures that no arguments are required.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all Cabinets (durable download queues) configured on the Figranium server. It also states what is returned (IDs, names, item counts), which makes the tool's function unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_cabinet.

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 gives explicit use context: 'Use this to find a Cabinet ID to reference in a Task's downloadCabinetId field or an upload action.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the use cases are clear enough; there are no competing list-cabinet alternatives among the siblings.

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