list_inference_configurations

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying that the listing reflects declarations and will not probe or execute, which is important given the surrounding execution-heavy sibling tools. It does not contradict 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 a single sentence that clearly states the action, the resource, and an important behavioral constraint. Every word contributes meaning; there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent that the tool is a safe, read-only inspection of declared inference configuration, which is sufficient to call it correctly.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics the description needs to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately adds no irrelevant parameter detail.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('declared inference servers and scenarios'), and the qualifier 'without probing or execution' clearly distinguishes it from execution-oriented siblings like run_inference_scenario or configure_inference_scenario. An agent can understand exactly what the tool returns.

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 phrase 'without probing or execution' gives clear usage context: this is the safe, non-invasive way to view declared configuration. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like list_inference_requests or configure_inference_scenario, but the exclusion of probing/execution is enough to guide basic selection.

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