ozon_perf_list_cabinets

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates safe read-only behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it lists the exact JSON return shape and explicitly states that secret values are never returned, which is a meaningful safeguard for the agent.

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 two compact sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes the return format without wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool, the description is complete: it says what it lists, which one is active, the JSON shape, and the secret-value guarantee. Combined with readOnlyHint and output schema context, no critical information is missing.

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?

There are zero parametersable, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The description instead clarifies the output structure, which is appropriate here.

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 ('List') and resource ('configured cabinets'), and it clarifies that it also indicates the active cabinet for the OZON_PERF marketplace. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like ozon_perf_use_cabinet or marketplace-specific list_cabinets tools.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to see configured cabinets and which one is active. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare it with alternatives such as ozon_perf_use_cabinet or other marketplace list_cabinets tools.

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