list_config_naming_examples

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds only the HTTP endpoint and a list of parameter names, without explaining how parameters affect the returned examples or what the response contains. It adds little behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 but not effectively concise. The parameter list is repetitive and provides no value, while the opening 'Read NamingConfig' lacks clarity. Important information such as purpose and output is missing, making the structure unhelpful despite its brevity.

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 tool with 13 parameters and no schema descriptions, this description is severely incomplete. It omits the purpose of the examples, the meaning of each parameter, the response format, and any usage context. An agent cannot correctly call this tool based on the description alone.

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 explain each parameter's meaning and effect. It merely repeats the parameter names and says 'Query parameter' for each, adding no semantic value. An agent cannot know what values are valid or how they influence the result.

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 states 'Read NamingConfig' which gives a verb and resource, but it is vague. The tool name suggests it lists naming configuration examples, yet the description does not clarify what 'examples' are, nor does it distinguish this from the sibling list_config_naming (which likely reads the actual config). It also does not explain what the output represents.

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 alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where list_config_naming or other tools would be more appropriate. An agent has no context for selecting this over siblings.

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