sbis_list_cabinets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description still adds real behavioral value by disclosing the return shape (active/cabinets/fields_needed) and the security guarantee that 'Secret values are never returned'.

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 lines, front-loaded with the purpose and the active-cabinet detail. The explicit 'Returns JSON: {...}' line is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, which is the only minor waste.

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-argument read tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description supplies everything critical, including the marketplace scoping and the secret-exposure guarantee. It omits any note about auth prerequisites, which is a minor gap given the presence of sbis_check_auth and sbis_set_key siblings.

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 there is no parameter semantics burden; baseline is 4. Nothing in the description misdefines or implies hidden inputs.

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 reporting which cabinet is active. It does not explicitly name the siblings it is not (e.g., sbis_use_cabinet / sbis_add_cabinet), but the purpose is unambiguous on its face.

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: an agent can infer this is a discovery step before sbis_use_cabinet, sbis_remove_cabinet, or any cabinet-scoped call. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites (e.g., auth state), and no stated exclusions.

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