List ACI Configurations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the acronym expansion (Aipolabs Composio-alternative), but does not disclose return format, pagination, or other behavioral traits. This is adequate given the strong annotation coverage but adds little extra.

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 states exactly what the tool does. There is no wasted wording or unnecessary repetition, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simplicity of the tool (zero parameters, read-only, idempotent) and the presence of sibling tools providing context, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand its purpose. While it does not mention what the returned list contains, the name and description imply a straightforward list operation, so it is fairly complete.

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 input schema is empty, so the schema provides 100% coverage by default. With no parameters to document, the description has no semantics to add, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameter-less tool.

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's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('ACI app configurations'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create/delete configurations. The parenthetical explanation of ACI as 'Aipolabs Composio-alternative' adds useful clarifying context.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention filters, prerequisites, or exclusions. Unlike the get_calls example which names a specific alternative, this description leaves usage entirely implicit.

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