list_request_namings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'List all request naming rules' without mention of pagination, sorting, read-only nature, or potential side effects, leaving the agent uninformed about important behavioral aspects.

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 that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is meaningful, with no extraneous information.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple list tool but lacks detail on what the response contains (e.g., list of names, full objects) or any pagination behavior, which could be needed for completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%. The description adds no param info, but with no parameters, the baseline is 4 as it does not need to compensate for missing schema explanations.

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 'List all request naming rules' with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('request naming rules'). The addition of '(classic Config API v1)' distinguishes it from potential other versions and siblings like 'create_request_naming' or 'get_request_naming'.

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 identifies the API version ('classic Config API v1'), providing context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'get_request_naming' for single items, though the name implies listing all.

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