wb_list_cabinets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns JSON with a specific shape (active, cabinets, fields_needed) and explicitly states that secret values are never returned. This is meaningful beyond the annotations and helps an agent trust the tool with sensitive data.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: what it lists, what it returns, and a security guarantee. The most important information (purpose) is front-loaded, and the JSON shape is compactly shown.

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 tool, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, output shape, and the key security behavior. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explain what 'fields_needed' means or when it would be populated, but the output schema and the tool's simple nature make this a small omission.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about inputs. The description instead clarifies the output shape, which is the relevant semantic content for a parameterless tool. Baseline 4 is appropriate for 0-param tools.

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 clearly states the tool lists configured cabinets for a marketplace and identifies which one is active. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wb_use_cabinet (which selects a cabinet) and wb_add_cabinet/remove_cabinet (which modify the set). The verb 'list' plus the resource 'cabinets' is specific and unambiguous.

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 read-only inspection tool for discovering available cabinets and the active one, which is clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling set (wb_use_cabinet, wb_add_cabinet, wb_remove_cabinet) makes the distinction inferable. A small gap: no explicit statement like 'use wb_use_cabinet to switch the active cabinet.'

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