list_system_tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description need not repeat. It adds useful context by naming example utilities (clear_transients, recount_terms) and categorizing them as maintenance tools, which helps the agent understand the scope without contradicting annotations.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Examples are parenthetical and don't distract. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple read-only list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It conveys the tool's purpose and examples, and the field parameter hints at the return format. Minor gap: it doesn't mention that results can be filtered/paginated, but that's not essential here.

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 coverage is 100% with the 'fields' parameter fully described (comma-separated fields with default). The description adds no extra parameter detail, but the schema does heavy lifting, so a 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 clearly states the tool lists available system tools with specific examples, distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_system_tool. The verb 'list' and resource 'system tools' are specific and 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 implies usage as a discovery mechanism for maintenance utilities but does not explicitly state when to use it versus related tools like run_system_tool or get_system_status. There is no exclusion guidance, but the purpose is clear enough for basic selection.

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