List provision configurations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the behavioral nuance that omitting category_code changes the result set from configurations to categories, which is not captured by annotations. No contradictions exist.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place. The first states the primary function and example; the second explains the optionality. No wasted words, and the key action 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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema and good annotations, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, parameter semantics (category_code omission), and relationship to categories. It is complete for the complexity level.

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 schema has descriptions for brand_id and category_code, but not for limit. The description adds meaningful semantics to category_code by explaining the omission behavior, but does not clarify limit or brand_id beyond the schema. With 67% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves limit under-explained.

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 clearly states the tool lists provision configurations (e.g., servers) for a given category code, and also explains the special behavior of omitting category_code to list categories themselves. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_categories and list_provision_functions by specifying the exact resource and optional behavior.

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?

The description provides clear usage context: use with category_code to list configurations for that category, or omit it to list categories. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'omit category_code' instruction effectively guides when to use this tool versus other listing tools.

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