list_partitions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states the read-only 'List' operation and the returned fields, which implies non-destructive behavior. However, it does not mention pagination behavior or authorization requirements, which are relevant for a list operation that may return many partitions.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action. It contains no filler and uses exactly the necessary sentences to convey purpose, return fields, and context.

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 simple list operation, an output schema, and well-documented parameters, the description is largely complete. It even explains what partitions do, adding useful context. The only gap is that saying 'List all' may be misleading given the pagination token parameter, which the description does not mention.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters 'limit' and 'token' are already well-documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, landing at the baseline of 3.

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 tool's function: 'List all index partitions.' It specifies both the verb ('List') and the resource ('index partitions'), and further clarifies what data it returns, distinguishing it from sibling tools that manage monitors, users, or dashboards.

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 implies usage when one needs to view partitions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. Since no other sibling tool handles partitions, the implied context is sufficient but not explicit.

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