list_configurations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adequately explains the save_to_file option (saving to temp file and returning path for jq) and the output_format variants, which adds value. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention any rate limits, pagination limits beyond max page_size, or potential side effects. It is not misleading, but it leaves some behavioral aspects unaddressed.

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-structured with an 'Args' section listing each parameter and a separate 'Returns' section. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids extraneous wording. Though it lists many parameters, each line is concise and no unnecessary repetition appears, making it appropriately sized.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema provided), the description covers the key aspects: it explains all parameters, the return type (JSON string), and the special save_to_file behavior. It does not discuss error handling, failover, or broader usage context, but for a list operation it is fairly complete. The lack of explicit differentiation from siblings is more of a usage guideline gap than a completeness one.

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 provides no descriptions for any parameters (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining each of the 11 parameters in a clear, contextually relevant way (e.g., 'Filter by organization ID', 'page_size: Number of results per page (max 1000)'). It also clarifies the default for output_format and the purpose of save_to_file, going beyond mere type definitions.

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 configurations from IT Glue, with a specific verb and resource. It also clarifies that configurations refer to devices/assets. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling search_configurations, which could serve a similar listing purpose with different filtering semantics.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search/list tools. It lists filter parameters but gives no indication of when a search_configurations or get_configuration would be more appropriate, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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