List server tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the enumeration workflow ('call this FIRST... then call_tool'), which is useful but largely duplicates the usage guidance rather than disclosing new behavioral traits like pagination or return shape.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the description is cluttered by a stray uppercase block ending in 'none reachable' that reads like an unresolved template substitution. That noise dilutes an otherwise compact two-sentence routing instruction.

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 list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description routes the agent adequately (list, then call_tool). It does not describe the return format, whether results are scoped per server, or how to handle the empty-server case implied by 'none reachable,' leaving a gap.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in-schema ('server name, or omit for all'). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'List the tools on a connected MCP server,' which an agent can distinguish from list_groups_with_costs or search_capabilities. However, the injected uppercase clause ('THESE SERVERS ARE AVAILABLE... none reachable') muddies the intent by referring to servers that are apparently not present.

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?

Explicit workflow guidance: 'call this FIRST to find the right tool, then call_tool,' and it names the alternative 'To find a tool by keyword instead, call search_capabilities(query).' The 'call this FIRST' rule is clear, though the phrase 'any of those' points at a list that resolves to 'none reachable,' weakening the trigger condition.

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