list_api_gateway_user_schemas

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole behavioral signal; it only restates the read/list operation and adds no details on pagination, return shape, or schema representation. It does not contradict anything, but it also does not disclose behavior beyond the name.

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?

One short sentence, no filler, and the action+object are front-loaded. Every word earns its place, though other dimensions pay for the missing elaboration.

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 one-parameter list call the description is mostly adequate, but with no output schema and no usage/exclusion guidance it leaves the agent to guess how the result differs from list_api_gateway_schemas. It would benefit from clarifying whether 'user-uploaded' means the opposite of 'discovered' and whether results are paginated.

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 single zone_id parameter is already fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description need not repeat it. It adds no extra semantics but the schema carries the burden.

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 identifies a concrete operation ('List') and resource ('API Gateway user-uploaded schemas'), and the 'user-uploaded' qualifier hints at a niche distinct from list_api_gateway_schemas. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast with the near-sibling list_api_gateway_schemas.

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 sentence tells an agent when to choose this tool over the similar sibling list tools (list_api_gateway_schemas, list_api_shield_schemas) or what 'user-uploaded' excludes. Context is only implied by the tool name.

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