Get launched EV configurations

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not mention return format, pagination, whether an empty list is possible, or any side effects. The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description itself provides no additional disclosure, making it minimal for transparency.

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 sentence containing one verb and one object, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the action, making it concise and well-structured.

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 the tool has no parameters and is a simple read operation, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not specify the return value structure (e.g., list of configuration objects), which would be helpful since there is no output schema. Overall, it lacks some contextual detail but is not misleading.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so schema-level coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to add parameter documentation because there are none.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('launched-assessment configurations'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cymulate_ev_launched_get (which gets a single assessment) and cymulate_ev_scheduled_get_configurations (which targets scheduled configurations). However, it does not elaborate on what 'configurations' includes, so it is not perfectly unambiguous.

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 explicit usage context, such as when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name and the word 'launched' imply it is for retrieving configurations of launched assessments, but there is no statement of exclusions or comparison with other config-related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.

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