list_directories_by_infrastructure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic operation without disclosing important behavioral details such as dependency on infrastructure existence, permission requirements, or whether the result is paginated. The minimal text adds little beyond the tool name.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key information. Perfectly concise.

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 parameter and no output schema, the description might seem sufficient at first glance. However, it lacks important context: there is no mention that the infrastructureId must refer to an existing infrastructure, no differentiation from similar list tools, and no hint about the return format. Given the number of sibling tools, this incompleteness hinders correct tool selection.

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 coverage is 100% (one parameter fully described in schema as 'Path parameter: infrastructureId'). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema. Per scoring rules, baseline is 3 for high coverage, and no extra value is provided.

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 'Get all directories for a given infrastructure' has a specific verb 'Get', clear resource 'directories', and scope 'for a given infrastructure'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_directories' (which likely lists all directories without filtering) and 'get_directory' (single directory). Thus, purpose is clear and differentiated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include 'list_directories', 'get_directory', 'get_directory_by_infrastructure', etc., but no contextual hints or exclusion criteria are given. This forces the agent to guess based on naming patterns.

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