hh_list_cabinets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read behavior is known. The description adds meaningful context by spelling out the return JSON shape, including the fields_needed property, and by promising 'Secret values are never returned' – a useful safety guarantee beyond the annotations.

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?

Very concise: the purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining two sentences describe the return format and a safety guarantee. No filler, no redundant restating of the input schema.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what it returns (active, cabinets, fields_needed) and the 'secrets never returned' caution. An agent has everything it needs to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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?

No parameters exist (0 params, schema coverage 100%), so the baseline is 4. The description's mention of fields_needed in the output is a return-value detail, not parameter semantics, and the tool requires no input, so nothing more is needed.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List configured cabinets...' and adds the marketplace and active-cabinet scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling hh_list_sections (a different resource) and from the cabinet-mutation siblings (hh_add_cabinet, hh_remove_cabinet, hh_use_cabinet).

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 context is implied: use this to see configured cabinets and which is active. However, it never explicitly contrasts with hh_list_sections or states exclusions/alternatives, leaving the when-not-to-use guidance to inference.

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