ghostrigger_list_mcp_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does describe the remote endpoint and the exact JSON return shape, and 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation, but it never explicitly states that no state changes occur or what happens if GhostRigger is unavailable. These are gaps for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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 main sentence is front-loaded and the description is compact, with a useful category survey, return format, and example. The KB pointer to an animation deep-dive file feels slightly tangential for a tool-listing endpoint, keeping this from a top score.

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 zero-parameter discovery tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it names the endpoint, states the return contract, gives a category overview, and shows an example invocation. An agent has everything needed to select and call this tool 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there are no parameter semantics to add. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details, and the example call reinforces the no-argument usage.

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 opens with a precise statement: 'List all KotorMCP tools available through GhostRigger's /mcp/tools/list endpoint.' This combines a specific verb, resource, and endpoint, and the KotorMCP qualifier differentiates it from generic sibling listing tools like list_available_tools or list_toolsets.

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 intended use is clear: call this when you need to enumerate the ~68 KotOR resource tools GhostRigger exposes, and the category list helps an agent recognize the scope. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but the endpoint and domain scope provide enough context to route the call.

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