list_config_ui

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description's 'Read' aligns with those. It adds minor context via the HTTP method/path but does not disclose behavior beyond what the annotations already provide. No contradiction.

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 short lines with no fluff: a one-line statement of purpose and the exact endpoint. Every part earns its place and is front-loaded.

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 parameterless, annotated read-only GET with an output schema, the definition is close to complete: the agent knows the operation, the endpoint, and safety. It could briefly note the relationship to get_config_ui_by_id, but nothing needed to invoke the call is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema properties are empty, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to add. Baseline 4 applies because nothing is left undocumented.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Read UiConfig') and gives the exact endpoint, so the agent can tell what operation this is. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling get_config_ui_by_id, but the list_ prefix and parameterless path signal a global read.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over get_config_ui_by_id or other list_config_* siblings. The endpoint implies whole-resource reading, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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