rag_available_configurations

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only listing operation, which is consistent with a list tool, but doesn't state whether it accesses remote systems, requires a session, or the impact of the sync parameter. It's adequate but lacks depth.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It immediately states the primary action and the objects involved. Perfect conciseness.

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 an output schema exists, return format may be covered, but the description is incomplete regarding parameter semantics and what the listing represents. The tool appears to be a broad enumeration utility, but lacks context on prerequisites or configuration requirements, making it under-specified for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not mention 'sync' or 'session_id' at all, leaving the agent to guess their purpose. The 'sync' parameter likely controls a synchronization action before listing, which is crucial for understanding the tool's behavior, but it's omitted.

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 clear action (List) and specifies the resource categories (configurations, extensions, snapshots, discovery roots). It distinguishes from siblings like rag_sources_list or rag_snapshots_list by naming all four, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from each sibling.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't explain what 'RAG-available' means or what the returned list is used for, leaving the agent to infer the context from the name.

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