List manager resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context on return envelope format ({items, total, truncated}) and the distinction between URI-only and full payload behavior, which goes beyond the 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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the primary action, includes a practical example, and avoids redundant information. Each sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior.

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's simplicity, full schema coverage, and helpful annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, optional details, and return envelope including truncation. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit cross-reference to get_manager for single-item retrieval, but this is not critical.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's example reinforces include_details but does not add meaning beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions, which already explain the boolean's effect.

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 'List Manager members' with a specific verb+resource, identifying BMC controllers (iDRAC/iLO/XCC) and optional detail inclusion. This distinguishes it from the sibling get_manager tool, which retrieves a single manager.

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 implies usage for listing managers but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_manager or state when to use this vs list_systems. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided, so agents must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and sibling list.

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