list_extension_monitoring_configs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it lists configurations, implying read-only, but does not mention pagination behavior, error handling (e.g., nonexistent extension), rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient.

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, concise sentence of 8 words, fitting the tool's simplicity. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, but may be overly terse.

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 lack of output schema and minimal description, the tool definition does not explain what the return value looks like (e.g., structure of configs) or any additional context like required permissions or prerequisites. This is inadequate for a complete contextual understanding.

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 coverage is 50%: only 'extensionName' has a description ('The extension name'), while 'pageSize' has none. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the missing documentation of 'pageSize'.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'all monitoring configurations' for 'Extension 2.0'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_extension_monitoring_config' (single config) and other list tools for different entities.

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 all configs for a given extension, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get, create, update, delete configs). No exclusions or context are given.

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