list_available_tools

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the data source (tool_inventory_categories.json), which is useful, but it never explicitly states that this is a read-only, side-effect-free operation, nor does it describe error behavior, alias completeness, or whether categories are case-sensitive. More behavioral context was needed given zero annotation coverage.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every section earns its place: purpose sentence, category/alias guidance, KB pointer, and a minimal example. There is no filler or repetition of schema content that isn't already useful.

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?

The tool is low-complexity (one optional parameter), an output schema exists so return values are already documented, and the schema defines the 'all' default. The description covers what is missing from structured fields: valid values, aliases, and a usage example. The remaining gap—failure behavior for invalid domains—is minor and partially mitigated by the KB reference.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining the 'domain' parameter in practical terms: it lists canonical category values (blueprint_graph, ui_umg, asset_import), friendly aliases (blueprints, generative, multiplayer, gas, world_building), and shows usage via an example. It doesn't enumerate every possible category, but the KB pointer covers that gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List available MCP tools') with a qualifying mechanism ('by domain/category using tool_inventory_categories.json'). It gives concrete canonical categories and friendly aliases, which differentiates it conceptually from sibling tools like list_toolsets or ghostrigger_list_mcp_tools, but it never explicitly names an alternative or says what it is not.

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?

Usage is implied concretely: pass a category or friendly alias, with an example call and a KB reference for the complete command reference. However, there is no guidance on when NOT to use this tool, no mention of alternatives such as list_toolsets/describe_toolset, and no statement about what happens if an invalid or unknown domain is passed.

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