list_guardrail_mcp_servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds non-obvious behavioral context by explaining that the sibling replace operation deletes mappings omitted from its request, which is exactly the risk this read call mitigates. It stops short of 5 because it says nothing about result volume or any pagination/ordering behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the prerequisite and the cross-tool workflow hint. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers purpose, eligibility precondition, and the workflow relationship to the destructive sibling, which is everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single guardrail_id parameter is fully documented as 'Guardrail UUID or slug', so the schema carries the load. The description's 'Requires a guardrail with target mcp_tools' is a usage precondition rather than added format or syntax meaning for the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every MCP-server mapping for one guardrail') and goes further by naming what the listing contains ('input/output phases and mapped capability IDs'). It is clearly distinguishable from replace_guardrail_mcp_servers and upsert_guardrail_mcp_server, both of which it explicitly references.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use directive: 'Use this before replace_guardrail_mcp_servers because replacement removes every mapping omitted from its request.' It also states the precondition ('Requires a guardrail with target mcp_tools'), so the agent knows both when to call it and when it will not apply.

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