doppler_configs_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It's a read-only listing operation, but the description doesn't state the return format, whether pagination is involved, whether it requires a prior 'doppler setup' for the optional project parameter, or what happens when no project is provided. The description is too thin to disclose behavioral traits beyond the obvious 'list all' semantics.

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 concise sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what appears to be a simple list tool. While it could add more detail, the brevity is not a structural flaw given the tool's simplicity.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks details about return format, behavior when project is not set (relying on doppler setup), and relationship to environments/config types in Doppler. Given the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is expected to carry more weight than it does.

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 100% for the single 'project' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does mention 'in a Doppler project' which loosely maps to the project parameter, and the sibling tool doppler_configs_create helps infer context. The parameter is optional and the schema already documents it well, so the description adds marginal value but doesn't need to compensate much.

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 'List all configs in a Doppler project' has a specific verb+resource (list configs) and clearly identifies the scope (all configs in a project). It distinguishes from siblings like doppler_configs_create and doppler_secrets_list by making clear it's about configs, not secrets. However, it's fairly brief and doesn't specify what a 'config' means in Doppler terminology, though that's a minor gap.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when listing configs is appropriate, what scenarios call for it, or any exclusions. The sibling list includes similar listing tools like doppler_projects_list and doppler_environments_list, and this description doesn't help the agent distinguish when to choose configs_list over those.

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