hh_list_cabinets

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the secret-handling boundary ('Secret values are never returned') and the response shape, which reassures an agent about data exposure.

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; the purpose is front-loaded and the return-shape plus secret note follow compactly. No filler or repetition.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the read-only/finite-world profile, the description is nearly sufficient as written. It could still note the relationship to hh_use_cabinet or that the list reflects this marketplace's configuration, but nothing required to call it correctly is absent.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 — there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter semantics are missing because none exist.

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 and resource ('List configured cabinets') scoped to 'this marketplace', and adds the distinguishing detail of which cabinet is active. Against siblings like hh_add_cabinet, hh_use_cabinet, and hh_remove_cabinet the read-only listing intent is unambiguous without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the verb 'List' signals a read-only inspection call, and the mention of an 'active' cabinet hints this is a prerequisite check before hh_use_cabinet. No explicit when-to-use statement, no named alternative, and no conditions are spelled out.

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