vsp360_list_operations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real context beyond that: write-tagged operations are blocked server-side, and the no-argument invocation switches the tool into a different listing mode. It does not state whether results are truncated or how the confidence rating on query results behaves.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the no-argument default before the filtered mode and the follow-up workflow. Every clause carries information an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (operationId, method, path, summary) for both modes. Combined with the workflow ordering and the read-only limitation, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool without further context.

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%, so baseline is 3 and all three parameters are already documented. The description adds the combinatorial semantics the schema does not state: with no arguments it lists tags with operation counts, while tag and/or query (individually or together) lists matching operations. It also enumerates the returned fields, which helps an agent interpret the query parameter's effect.

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?

States a specific verb (browse/list) and resource (the VSP 360 REST API operations) and spells out what the two modes return. It explicitly names the sibling tools vsp360_describe_operation and vsp360_call_operation, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening any schema.

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?

"Use this first to find the operationId you need, then vsp360_describe_operation and vsp360_call_operation" gives an explicit ordering against alternatives. It also states an exclusion up front: operations marked [write] are blocked because the server runs read-only, so the agent knows not to attempt write calls.

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