ym_list_cabinets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently describes a read-only listing. It goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the exact return shape ('active', 'cabinets', 'fields_needed') and a security guarantee that secret values are never returned, which adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 concise sentences: the first front-loads the action and scope, and the second provides the return format and an important secrecy guarantee. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is complete. It names the resource, clarifies what the response contains, and warns about secret values, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 accepts zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers parameter semantics. Baseline for zero parameters is 4; the description reinforces what data will be returned but does not need to elaborate on parameters. No gap exists.

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 and which one is active.' It clearly identifies the operation (list), the object (cabinets), and a distinguishing extra (active status), making it easy to separate from sibling tools like ym_add_cabinet or ym_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?

The context is clear: use it when you need to see configured cabinets and the active one for this marketplace. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as ym_use_cabinet or wb_list_cabinets, so usage guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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