get_tools_route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that - no mention of pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or that results are scoped to tools in the workspace. With annotations doing the work, a low score is warranted for zero added context.

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 words is not conciseness but under-specification; the description is too short to carry any signal. This mirrors the 'Process' calibration case, where extreme brevity was scored as inadequate rather than efficient.

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?

For an eight-parameter, paginated, filterable listing endpoint, the description conveys none of the operational context an agent needs (what a 'tool' means here, that results are paginated, how cursoring works). The 100%-covered schema mitigates some of this, and the read-only annotations cover safety, but the description itself is essentially absent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all eight parameters (types, cursor, search, sort_by, page_size, sort_direction, created_by_user_id, show_only_owned_documents) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Get Tools" restates the tool's own name and title almost verbatim, adding no scope, verb nuance, or resource qualification. It does not distinguish this from siblings such as get_tool_route (singular), list_mcp_server_tools_route, or get_tool_dependent_agents_route. An agent gets no more information from the description than from the tool name.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. With many similarly named tool-listing/getter endpoints in the sibling set, some routing guidance is exactly what is missing. The description offers no guidance at all.

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