list_operating_systems

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the tool lists all OSes and returns a JSON string, and it documents filter and pagination parameters (partial match, max page_size), which adds some behavior. It does not disclose filter combination logic, sorting, total-count behavior, authentication, or data freshness, though for a simple read-only list this is only partially incomplete.

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 front-loaded with the core action and uses a compact Args section; every line is informative. The platform examples and max page_size earn their place, though the introductory sentence about configuration creation is somewhat redundant with purpose and could be trimmed.

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 this is a low-complexity list operation with an output schema, the description covers the core action, all parameters with semantics, and the return type. It lacks explicit guidance on when to choose list_operating_systems over search_operating_systems and on filter combination, but it is otherwise sufficient for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It adds 'partial match' for name, platform examples ('Windows', 'Linux', 'macOS'), 'page number (starts at 1),' and 'max 1000' for page_size, which are not in the schema. It could further clarify whether filters combine and the default page_size, but it compensates well for the schema gap.

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 'List all operating systems,' a clear verb-resource pair, and adds examples of OS values and the purpose (used when creating configurations). It implies a distinction from the sibling search_operating_systems by emphasizing 'all,' but it never explicitly names or contrasts that sibling.

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 mentions that operating systems are used when creating configurations, which hints at a relevant use case, but it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not contrast with search_operating_systems or other reference-data tools. This is only implied usage, not clear routing.

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