list_scan_configs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only 'List scan configurations with optional pagination' but does not disclose default behavior (e.g., default page size, default sort order, whether all configs are returned or only those accessible to the user). The term 'list' implies read-only, but this is not explicit, and no details about response format, errors, or rate limits are provided.

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 communicates the core function and a key option (pagination) without any unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation and follows a clear subject-verb-object structure.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context. It does not mention the sort parameter, which is part of the schema, nor does it clarify default pagination behavior or differentiate from similar listing tools. For a list operation, more detail about return values (even without an output schema) would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, with each parameter (size, sort, index) having its own description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely mentions 'optional pagination' which is already implied by the size and index parameters. Thus, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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+resource combination: 'List scan configurations' clearly indicates this tool retrieves scan configuration records. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_scans (which lists scans, not scan configs) and get_scan_config (which retrieves a single config). The phrase 'with optional pagination' further clarifies scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies a listing operation, it does not mention that get_scan_config is for single items or that create/update/delete are for mutations. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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