List support bundles

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 accurately states the operation is a list of generated bundles, which implies a read-only, non-destructive action. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or whether only metadata is returned; the documentation link partially compensates for this gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource immediately, followed by a documentation link. There is no filler or redundancy; every element earns its place.

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 the tool's low complexity—zero parameters and no output schema—the description is nearly sufficient on its own: it identifies the action, resource, and a documentation reference. It lacks an explicit note about return shape, which is a minor gap for a simple list operation, and the attached docs help fill that context.

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 is an empty object with zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to document. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description appropriately contains no parameter-specific information.

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 uses the precise verb 'List' with a specific resource, 'generated Longhorn support bundles,' immediately distinguishing this from get, create, delete, and update operations among siblings. The qualifier 'generated' clarifies that it returns existing bundles only, and the linked Longhorn docs further define what a support bundle is.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as supportbundle_get for retrieving a single bundle. However, the usage is reasonably implied by the action: if the agent needs to enumerate existing generated bundles, this is the tool. No misleading guidance is present, but no exclusions or alternative routing are offered.

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