icap_server_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The description only says 'List' which implies a non-destructive read, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, filtering capabilities (beyond vdom), permissions required, or whether results are limited. This is minimal and insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise at five words. While it avoids fluff, it is arguably under-specified for a tool that likely returns a list of configurations. The structure is front-loaded but could benefit from additional context without sacrificing 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 that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. However, for a tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description could provide more context about what constitutes an 'ICAP server configuration' and how it relates to siblings like 'icap_profile_list'. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps.

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 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'vdom', documenting its default and special value '*'. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'ICAP server configurations', indicating a read operation. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'icap_profile_list', which may be confused with this one. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'icap_profile_list', nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description provides no context for appropriate usage, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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