list_rest_messages

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, indicating safe, repeatable, and broad scope. The description adds context about the resource type ('outbound REST Message configurations'), which is helpful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations suggest. No contradictions.

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 that conveys the core purpose efficiently. Every word adds value, no wasted text.

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 safe annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete enough. It does not explicitly mention pagination or return format, but the limit parameter implies pagination. No output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return values.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (query, limit) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 it lists outbound REST Message configurations, specifying 'integrations with external APIs'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_rest_message (single retrieval) and list_rest_message_functions (different entity type).

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 implies usage for listing all REST Message configurations, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_rest_message for a single config, or list_rest_message_functions for functions). No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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