list_operations

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses that it is read-only ('Nothing is written'), enumerates exactly what each row contains, and explains inference behavior (inferred input entity, skip reasons). It stops short of covering auth needs, rate limits, or error behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a dense but informative column list, then an Args section. The long enumeration of row columns is justified since it defines the output contract, though it is slightly verbose given an output schema exists.

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?

Both parameters are explained despite 0% schema coverage, the read-only behavior is stated, and an output schema exists so return structure need not be re-described (though the row list does so anyway). Missing only edge-case/error handling, which is minor.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'openapi' documents accepted forms (URL, file path, or the document as text/object), and 'service' explains its purpose (making transform ids match scaffold_transform's output). It omits format edge cases but adds real meaning beyond the bare anyOf schema.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (operations in an OpenAPI spec) plus the value-add (what scaffolding each would produce). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_transforms, list_entities, and get_transform, which operate on different resources.

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 implicitly positions this as a pre-scaffolding inspection step by telling the agent to pass the operation id to scaffold_transform's operation_ids, which gives a clear workflow context. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement or contrast against list_transforms.

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