evm_list_registered_abis

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile. The description adds the nuance that the tool returns labels (not full ABIs) and that these are registered via evm_register_abi. However, it doesn't mention return format, ordering, or state scope, so it adds only a modest amount beyond the annotation.

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 with a clear verb and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, front-loading the action ('List') and providing the exact scope ('all ABI labels registered via evm_register_abi').

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, zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description is complete. It explains what is listed (ABI labels) and where they come from (via evm_register_abi). With no output schema, the description still implies the return type (a list of labels), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, making schema coverage 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter info (there is none needed), but it does clarify that the output is a list of ABI labels, which is useful context for what the tool returns.

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 ('List') and resource ('ABI labels') with a clear source qualifier ('registered via evm_register_abi'). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like evm_get_contract_abi (which retrieves a specific ABI) and evm_register_abi (which adds new ABIs).

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 clearly indicates that the tool lists all ABI labels registered via evm_register_abi, providing a clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes it obvious that this is the tool for enumerating registered labels rather than retrieving a single ABI.

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