Compact tool catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavior: output is compact and excludes JSON schemas, and refresh triggers a slower live re-index. It does not cover pagination, output limits, or failure modes.

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 tightly front-loaded, uses two short sentences, and every clause adds actionable meaning without repetition.

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 read-only catalog tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It explains compact output and refresh semantics, though it omits pagination or result-size expectations.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented. The description restates the server filter and refresh behavior with only a small addition that refresh is slower, matching the schema.

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 upstream tools compactly, including name and one-line description without JSON schemas. This clearly distinguishes it from get_tool_schema, but it does not explicitly contrast with search_tools or list_servers.

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?

It implies usage through 'optionally filter to one server' and 'set refresh=true to force a live re-index', but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as search_tools or suggest_tools.

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