list_system_tools

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

Given no annotations, the description implies a read-only operation and adds important domain context about the absence of a grant/revoke tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state non-destructiveness or discuss permissions, but it is adequate for this simple tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and return fields, followed by a useful usage note. No wasted words, very 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 a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and provides a key usage tip. No gaps.

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 input schema has no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by listing the returned fields (id, label, description, category), which is more than the schema provides.

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 the tenant's system-tool catalog with specific fields (id, label, description, category), distinguishing it from other list tools by specifying 'system-tool catalog' and providing a unique usage hint about granting tools.

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 explicitly mentions there is no grant/revoke tool and directs users to use update_agent to enable a tool, providing good usage context. While it could contrast more directly with sibling list tools, it still offers clear guidance.

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