list_inference_configurations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds the valuable context 'without probing or execution,' which goes beyond the annotations by specifying that no probing or execution occurs. This is useful and aligns with the annotation hints.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, and the qualifier 'without probing or execution' is efficiently placed. Every word earns its place.

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, read-only list tool with output schema and strong annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It specifies what is listed and that no probing/execution occurs, covering all necessary context for an agent.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. Per baseline rules for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description correctly focuses on the operation rather than arguments.

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 'List' plus resource 'declared inference servers and scenarios,' clearly distinguishing it from execution-oriented siblings like run_inference_scenario and configure_inference_*. The phrase 'without probing or execution' further differentiates this from tools that inspect or execute.

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 clear context: use this to see declared configurations without probing or executing. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the 'without probing or execution' phrase implies when not to use it (e.g., when execution is needed). This is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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