diadoc_list_cabinets

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: the exact JSON shape returned, the presence of fields_needed, and the guarantee that 'Secret values are never returned.' This helps an agent understand expectations without calling the tool.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the return format plus security-relevant behavior are stated efficiently.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema available, this description is complete. It tells the agent what will be returned, notes that secrets are excluded, and gives enough context to invoke it safely.

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 description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because the tool takes no arguments.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List configured cabinets for this marketplace'. It also clarifies that it reports which cabinet is active, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like diadoc_use_cabinet or diadoc_list_sections.

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 makes the use context clear: call this when you need to see the configured cabinets and the active one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of full when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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