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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by listing exactly what information is returned (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool count), which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.

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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the action ('Returns the current toolkit state'), and lists the key elements without fluff. Every word adds value, and the structure is clean.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the information returned: installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, and catalog tool count. Given it's a read-only overview tool with zero parameters, this is complete context for an agent to understand what it will receive. Sibling tools are adequately differentiated.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially covered. The baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly focuses on the output, which offsets the lack of parameter documentation.

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's purpose: returning the current toolkit state including installed MCPs, connection status, associated accounts, and catalog tool counts. It uses a specific verb ('returns') and names a precise resource (toolkit state), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect or show_version.

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: when you need an overview of what MCPs are installed and their status. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling alternatives (e.g., show_version) or state when not to use it, but the purpose is self-evident for a read-only informational tool. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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