portainer_configs_list

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

The description explicitly states that content is never returned, which informs about data exposure and implies a read-only nature. Since no annotations are present, this transparency is valuable and largely sufficient.

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 and to the point, with a clear main statement followed by a brief args note. No unnecessary words or repetitive information are present.

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 list operation, the description provides sufficient context: the resource type, the scope via endpoint_id, and the returned data type. It does not cover output formatting or pagination, but these are not critical for a basic listing.

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 only parameter, endpoint_id, is explained as 'Target endpoint ID (uses default if omitted)' in the description. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, which has no description, and clarifies the parameter's role.

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), the resource (Swarm configs), and a key restriction (names and metadata only, never content). This is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention suitable scenarios or comparisons to sibling tools, so the user must infer applicability.

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