config_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation and 'keys' indicates that values are not returned, but side effects, ordering, and scope limits such as whether hidden keys are included are left implicit.

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?

'List all config keys.' is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It contains exactly the action, resource, and scope in four words.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema, this is nearly complete: no input guidance is needed and return shape is presumably covered by the schema. It loses a point because it does not route the agent away from single-key config operations or state the read-only nature explicitly.

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 input schema is empty, so no parameter documentation is needed. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('config keys') and conveys enumeration of the full set ('all'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling config_get/config_set/config_delete tools, which operate on individual keys or values.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not tell the agent when to prefer this over config_get for individual key lookup, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions such as 'to read a specific value, use config_get'.

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