Get artifact configurations

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true already covers the read-only nature, and the description's verb 'List' is consistent. The description adds a small qualifier ('externalized parameters') which clarifies the scope of configurations, but it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits such as whether it returns all versions, how it handles missing versions, or the exact response structure. With the annotation present, a score of 3 is appropriate as some context is added.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('List externalized parameters...') and avoids unnecessary detail. It is concise and well-structured for a simple listing tool, though it lacks any additional formatting or elaboration that could aid comprehension.

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?

The tool has two parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides no information about parameter meaning or the expected return format. Since there is no output schema to rely on, the description should at least indicate what the response contains (e.g., list of configuration names/values). The description is too sparse to fully guide an agent in constructing a correct call and interpreting results.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for the parameters 'id' and 'version'. The tool description does not mention these parameters at all, so the agent has no explicit information about what 'id' refers to (e.g., artifact ID) or the semantics of 'version'. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving the agent to guess.

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's purpose: 'List externalized parameters (configurations) for an integration design-time artifact.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('artifact configurations'), and differentiates from siblings like get_integration_packages or get_integration_flows by focusing on configurations specifically. The existence of update_artifact_configuration also makes the read/get nature evident.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the context (e.g., retrieving configurations before updating) or any exclusions (e.g., 'use update_artifact_configuration to modify'). No sibling or alternative tools are referenced, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate usage.

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