List solutions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds the auth-profile requirement and reports the returned fields, which is genuine context, but says nothing about pagination, filtering behavior, or that it is a non-mutating read beyond the implication of 'list'.

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?

A compact two-clause sentence that front-loads the pac command and purpose, with the prerequisite stated efficiently at the end. No filler, though it is terse to the point of under-specification.

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 list tool with no output schema this is minimally adequate: purpose, prerequisite, and partial return content are covered. The undocumented includeSystem parameter and absence of any note on scope or result format leave clear gaps.

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 coverage is 50%: 'environment' is documented but 'includeSystem' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description lists output fields (version, managed flag) but never explains what includeSystem controls, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('list: solutions in an environment') plus the fields returned ('version and managed flag'). This clearly reads as an enumeration tool, distinguishable from mutation siblings like cs_create_solution or cs_delete_solution, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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?

'Needs a pac auth profile' states a real prerequisite, which is useful context. However, there is no guidance on when to use this over alternatives such as cs_describe_solution or cs_list_environments, and no exclusion conditions; usage is only implied.

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