list_managers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output fields, which is useful, but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or mention any prerequisites or side effects. 'List' implies safety, but an explicit statement would improve transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the key return fields. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it lists and what fields are returned. It is a simple tool, and the description fully covers its purpose and expected output, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 parameters, and the schema has no properties. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and since there is nothing to explain, the description adequately covers the parameter semantics by omission.

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 the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'BMC managers' and scope 'all', distinct from sibling get_manager which presumably retrieves a single manager. It also states the returned fields, removing ambiguity.

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 phrase 'List all BMC managers' provides clear context for when to use this tool—when you need an enumeration. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the presence of get_manager implies differentiation. This matches 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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