list_config_naming_examples

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint and parameter list but no additional behavioral context such as what the examples represent, whether they are computed from the provided parameters, or how the response is structured. It doesn't contradict annotations, but it adds little beyond them.

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 short and front-loaded with the endpoint, but the parameter list is a bare enumeration that duplicates the schema without adding meaning. It is concise but not well-structured for an agent: the 'Args:' section is just a list of names with no descriptions, making it low-value 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?

With 7 optional parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no explanation of what the tool returns, the description is incomplete. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the semantics of the parameters and the purpose of 'examples' are missing. An agent cannot confidently construct a meaningful call without external knowledge.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it merely lists parameter names with no explanation of their meaning or how they affect the returned examples. For instance, 'colon_replacement_format' is an object with no described semantics, and 'id' is unclear in the context of naming examples. The description fails to add value beyond the schema's property names.

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 says 'Read NamingConfig' and gives the endpoint, which is a clear verb+resource. However, it doesn't explain what NamingConfig is or what 'examples' means in this context, and it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling list_config_naming or get_config_naming_by_id. The endpoint path is useful but the purpose remains somewhat vague.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus list_config_naming, get_config_naming_by_id, or update_config_naming_by_id. The description simply restates the endpoint and parameters. An agent cannot tell whether to call this for current settings, examples, or a specific config.

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