List MCP Tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly presents this as a read-only discovery operation that lists every tool with its key metadata, which is sufficient behavioral transparency for a simple, non-mutating listing 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 long, with the first sentence front-loading the operative verb, scope, and output fields. The second sentence adds actionable usage guidance. There is no filler or redundancy.

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, parameterless discovery tool, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. The enumerated return fields make the result shape clear even without an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific details because none are needed; this meets the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('List') and a well-defined resource ('every tool exposed by this MCP server'), and it enumerates the exact return fields (name, HTTP method, API path, description). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other resource types, such as sdnext_list_scripts or sdnext_list_controlnets.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover what is available before calling sdnext_call_api.' This provides clear context for usage, though it does not mention explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternative discovery tools.

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