nacos_list_configs

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description adds substantial behavioral context: search=blur does not auto-wildcard, substrings don't match unless wildcards are explicit, and the return includes a total count. It also discloses version-specific API endpoints. This goes well beyond minimal disclosure and enriches the agent's mental model.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, a bulleted API mapping, a separate matching-semantics paragraph, and a clear return format statement. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity. No redundant content.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's purpose, filtering capabilities, matching behavior, return format, and version support. With an output schema present, it provides everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results. No gaps detected.

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 provides 100% coverage for all 8 parameters, including detailed descriptions of wildcard behavior for data_id and group_name. The description's matching semantics section essentially reiterates this schema information without adding new parameter-specific meaning. Thus the baseline of 3 applies, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool queries the configuration list under a namespace, using the specific verb '查询' and resource '配置列表'. It differentiates from siblings like nacos_get_config by explicitly noting it returns metadata (data_id, group_name) and excludes config content, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: it returns metadata only, not content, implying it is for listing rather than fetching full configs. It also explains matching semantics for fuzzy vs exact search. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions (e.g., 'use nacos_get_config for content'), so it misses the highest bar for explicit guidance.

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