crpt_list_cabinets

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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is already declared. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it documents the exact return shape and, critically, states 'Secret values are never returned', which reassures the agent about credential exposure – not something annotations convey.

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?

Three tight sentences/line items: purpose, return shape, and a security note. Front-loaded with the purpose. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so describing the return JSON in prose is somewhat redundant, but the security caveat and 'active cabinet' framing are additive. For a zero-arg read tool this is complete; only the lack of sibling routing guidance is a small gap.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. Nothing to document, and the description correctly devotes no space to parameter semantics.

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 (configured cabinets) and adds scope ('for this marketplace and which one is active'). Siblings like crpt_add_cabinet/crpt_use_cabinet are clearly differentiated as mutating operations versus this read.

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 this is a discovery step but never states when to use it versus alternatives. It mentions which cabinet is active, loosely hinting at a pairing with crpt_use_cabinet, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is offered.

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