list_api_gateway_schemas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the listing action and zone scope, with no mention of return format, pagination, permissions, or any side effects. While 'List' implies read-only behavior, the description adds little beyond what the name already conveys.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It is appropriately short for a simple list operation and gets straight to the point.

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 simple one-parameter list tool, the description covers the resource and scope, and the schema covers the parameter. However, with no output schema, no annotation, and no differentiation from sibling tools, the description leaves the agent without enough context to confidently select it in ambiguous situations.

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 schema provides 100% parameter documentation, including a clear description for zone_id, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'for a zone' loosely echoes the zone_id parameter but does not add any new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('List'), resourse ('API Gateway schemas'), and scope ('for a zone'), which is clear and actionable. However, it does not distinguish itself from similarly named siblings like list_api_schemas, list_api_shield_schemas, or list_api_gateway_user_schemas, leaving some potential for confusion.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of equivalent tools or conditions that would select one over another, so the agent is left to infer selection based on the name alone.

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