List Configured CPI Tenants

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a non-mutating, read-only listing operation, and the phrase 'configured to reach' clarifies the scope is server-based configuration. It doesn't hide side effects or overpromise, though it doesn't explicitly state the output format.

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 two sentences, with the primary function front-loaded in the first sentence and usage guidance in the second. Every clause earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, scope, and workflow context. It even implies the return value is a list of valid tenant names ('this is how to find the valid names'), making the tool complete for agent use.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds useful context about how the returned tenant names are used by other tools, which is the relevant semantic information in lieu of parameters.

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 opens with 'List the SAP CPI tenants this MCP server is configured to reach,' using a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes this tool from siblings as the dedicated tenant-listing tool. It clearly names the exact scope (configured tenants on the MCP server).

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?

It explicitly instructs to 'Call this first if it isn't already clear which tenant to use' and explains that every other tool takes a `tenant` argument once 2+ tenants are configured, naming its role in the workflow. This provides clear when-to-use guidance relative to all sibling tools.

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