analyze_configurables

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

Discloses use of Aggregate API for efficiency with fallback to limited fetches, adding context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). Does not contradict annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then details on counts, then usage note. Moderately concise; the Args/Returns section is helpful but could be integrated more tightly.

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?

Covers input, behavior, and output (with output schema present). Lacks details on error handling or fallback cases, but is sufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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, the description compensates by explaining the parameter ('table') is a CMDB table and provides an example ('cmdb_ci_server'), adding meaning beyond the schema's bare type.

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 it produces a summary of all configurables for a CMDB table, listing the specific types counted (business rules, client scripts, etc.), and distinguishes from siblings that retrieve individual configurable types.

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?

Explicitly advises use 'for a quick audit ... before making changes', which is a specific use case. While it doesn't list alternatives, the context of sibling tools for individual getters implies when to use them instead.

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