list_guardrail_mcp_servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the precondition on the guardrail and the destructive semantics of the follow-up replace call, which is the non-obvious risk an agent needs. Return shape is left to the output schema.

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?

Three short sentences: what it returns first, then the precondition, then the sequencing rationale. Zero filler and the highest-value warning (replacement drops omitted mappings) is placed where it will be read.

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?

With one required parameter fully documented and an output schema present, the description only needs purpose, precondition and sequencing — all supplied. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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% and guardrail_id is documented as UUID or slug, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond by constraining the referent (guardrail must have target mcp_tools), which tells the agent when the parameter will yield an empty/unusable result.

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?

Specific verb and resource with explicit scope: 'List every MCP-server mapping for one guardrail', plus the returned fields (input/output phases, mapped capability IDs). This clearly separates it from sibling mutations like replace_guardrail_mcp_servers and upsert_guardrail_mcp_server.

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?

Explicit sequencing guidance: use before replace_guardrail_mcp_servers because replacement removes omitted mappings, plus a stated precondition ('Requires a guardrail with target mcp_tools'). The when-to-use and the reason are both given, no inference left to the agent.

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