list_toolsets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's additional details about returning active and available toolsets add useful behavioral context without contradicting annotations. It does not mention any destructive or side effects, which is appropriate given the read-only hint.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief one-line purpose, a paragraph with contextual usage, and a clear 'Returns:' section. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

Given zero parameters, annotations covering safety, and an implied output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains the purpose, selection mechanism, and return format, leaving no gaps for the agent.

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 100% schema description coverage, so baseline is 4 per guidelines. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it correctly omits such, focusing instead on the return structure and env var context.

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 tool groups (toolsets) that the server knows and which are active. It uses a specific verb 'List' and a resource 'tool groups (toolsets)', and distinguishes itself from sibling CRUD tools by being a meta-level discovery tool.

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 explains how toolsets are selected via the PLANE_TOOLSETS env var and provides context for clients to reduce context window usage. While it does not explicitly mention when to use vs. alternatives, the tool is unique among siblings, so the guidance is clear enough.

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