list_component_configs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List all configurations' implies a read operation, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what format the configurations are returned in. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'configurations' means in this context, what format they're returned in, whether there are limitations on what can be listed, or provide any operational context. The minimal description leaves too many questions unanswered.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 1 undocumented parameter, the description provides no additional semantic information about the 'component_id' parameter. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid component ID, where to find component IDs, or provide any examples or constraints beyond what's minimally implied by the parameter name.

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 action ('List all configurations') and the target resource ('for a specific component'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'list_components', which appears to list components rather than their configurations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'list_components' or other metadata tools on the server.

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