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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the returned tools run on the developer's own machine over stdio rather than on this server. It also clarifies that the tools are registered per session. This is valuable environmental and execution-model transparency.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second adds an important environmental caveat. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 tool is simple: one optional parameter, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety. The description explains what the tool lists, why an agent would call it, and where the listed tools execute. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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 only parameter, group, is fully documented in the schema with an enum and a description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return the MCP tools agent-manager registers into every session it starts.' This clearly identifies what is being listed and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_doc_pages and list_supported_agents, which target different resources.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: an agent running inside an agent-manager session may call it to discover tools for spawning, messaging, and waiting on other agents. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is specific enough to guide selection.

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