mayotte_list_reference_items

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. 'List' implies a read-only operation and 'when available' hints that the result may conditionally be empty, but it does not describe error cases, whether the list is exhaustive, or what sort of data these reference items contain. For a zero-parameter tool, this minimal transparency is acceptable but not rich.

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?

A single sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter, informational listing tool and front-loads the key verb and object.

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 description does not explain what 'reference items' are, what the output looks like, or how 'available' is determined. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context for the agent to know the value and expected return of this tool. The information provided is minimal and leaves important semantic gaps.

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, and schema coverage is effectively 100%. With no parameters to describe, the description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline for zero parameters 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'built-in reference items' for this MCP, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that list communes, sources, or datasets. However, 'reference items' is somewhat vague and the conditional phrase 'when available' adds ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit prerequisites, exclusions, or distinctions from sibling tools. The only usage clue is the description's self-evident label, which is not enough to guide an agent choosing among the nine siblings.

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