list_configuration_statuses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior (page starts at 1, page_size max 1000), partial-match filtering by name, and the return format (JSON string with a list). It does not discuss authorization or rate limits, but for a simple list operation the provided behavioral detail is solid.

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 well-organized with a short intro, a clarifying definition, an Args block, and a Returns block. Every sentence adds value and the structure makes the information easy to scan.

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 simple paginated list tool with an output schema and no required parameters, the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, pagination limits, and return format. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it successfully.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explicitly documents all three parameters: name is a partial-match filter, page starts at 1, and page_size caps at 1000. This fully compensates for the schema gap and adds meaning beyond raw property names and defaults.

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 uses a specific verb and resource—'List all configuration statuses'—and then clarifies what configuration statuses are (state of a device/asset with examples). This distinguishes it from sibling reference-data tools like list_configuration_types and list_organization_statuses.

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 when to use the tool: when a caller needs configuration statuses representing device/asset states such as Active, Inactive, or Decommissioned. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to related list_* reference tools.

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