list_detection_date_items

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys only that the operation is a passive 'list' (implying a benign read), but says nothing about the return format, ordering, pagination, or what fields each configuration item will contain. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a thin disclosure.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and target immediately. It is appropriately short for a zero-parameter tool, though it leans toward under-specification in substance rather than demonstrating deliberate conciseness with rich content.

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 simple zero-parameter read tool, the description is minimally acceptable, but it misses the only thing an agent needs to know: what the returned 'detection date configuration items' look like and what the response contains, especially given there is no output schema to fill this gap. No mention of what 'current' refers to leaves the agent without full context.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously, since there are no properties). Per the rubric, 0-parameter tools receive a baseline of 4; the description has no parameters to explain, so no added meaning is required.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List current detection date configuration items.' It is clearly the read counterpart to sibling add_detection_date_item and remove_detection_date_item, so an agent can distinguish it. However, 'current' is vague (current to what context?) and 'detection date configuration items' is not expanded, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 provided on when to call this tool versus its siblings. It does not say 'use this to review existing detection-date items before adding or removing one,' nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent gets no routing information beyond what the name implies.

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