list_configurations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain context (a default "Any" configuration exists per project, and configurations are the binding unit for test points and results), but says nothing about what happens with omitted parameters, pagination, or result size.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence carries information. No filler, though the second sentence's relevance to invocation could have been tied more directly to usage.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the what and the domain role adequately. The key gap is the completely undocumented identifier parameters, which an agent needs in order to call the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and both projectId and projectName are undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description never explains the relationship or precedence between the two, nor that both are optional, leaving the agent to guess which identifier to supply.

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?

"List configurations for a project" gives a specific verb and resource, and the note about the default "Any" configuration clarifies what the objects represent. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as list_test_plan_configurations, list_test_suite_configurations, or search_configurations, so an agent must infer the difference from names alone.

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 statement that test points and results are always bound to a configuration implies why an agent would need configuration IDs, which is useful implied context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus search_configurations or the plan/suite-scoped variants, and no exclusions.

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