list_products

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List all' does convey a read-only, unfiltered enumeration, which is useful context, but it says nothing about result size, pagination, ordering, or permission requirements for a tool that could return a large set.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The parenthetical clarification earns its place by explaining a domain term the agent would otherwise have to guess at.

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?

This is a simple read-only, zero-parameter list tool and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The only real gap is the absence of pagination or result-size expectations, which is minor for a tool of this complexity.

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, so there is no per-argument meaning for the description to add. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies, and the parenthetical about what a product represents adds useful contextual meaning.

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 ('List all DefectDojo products') and adds domain meaning with the clarification that each product is typically one repo or service. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool to contrast against, but the resource is clearly distinct from the findings-oriented siblings.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named. The phrase 'all' implicitly signals an unfiltered full enumeration, but the agent must still infer whether filtering or pagination requires a different call.

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