wb_list_cabinets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating secret values are never returned. It also discloses the exact JSON return shape, which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction with 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?

The description is compact: two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a precise return-format note and a security guarantee. Every sentence earns its place.

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 with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the return shape, and the security behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 no parameter semantics burden. The description still adds value by explaining what the returned fields mean (active, cabinets, fields_needed), which is useful for interpreting the output.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('cabinets'), and the mention of 'active' distinguishes it from related cabinet-management siblings like wb_add_cabinet or wb_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 description implies this is the read-only inspection tool for cabinet configuration, and the sibling list shows many cabinet-mutating tools (add/remove/use/set_key) that this is not. It doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for listing/status purposes.

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