list_mcp_server_tools_route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on whether it contacts the remote MCP server (openWorld implies network reach, worth spelling out), whether results are cached, or how failures surface.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded, but it is a bare fragment with no structure because there is nothing substantive to structure. It is not verbose, yet it is under-specified rather than concise in the helpful sense.

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 a two-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description should at least say what the listing contains (e.g., tool names/schemas exposed by that MCP server) and any scope limits. Without that, an agent cannot confidently predict the result or distinguish this from related MCP listing/config tools.

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%, with mcp_server_id and the environment parameter (production default, env-var resolution) fully documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, 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?

The description is essentially a restatement of the tool name/title ('List Mcp Server Tools' → list_mcp_server_tools_route). It identifies verb and resource only implicitly and provides no scope information, such as whether it lists all tools registered on one MCP server or discovered tools from the server's connection.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. Given siblings such as list_mcp_servers_route, get_mcp_route, get_mcp_tool_config_override_route, and get_tools_route, the agent gets no help deciding when this listing is the right call.

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