list_configured_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a safe, read-only enumeration, but says nothing about scope (whole Studio vs. current workspace), permissions, or result size; the risk is low for a zero-parameter list, so this is adequate rather than 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and resource lead, and every word earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present and zero input parameters, the description need not explain return values. The only remaining gap is scope (which tools, from where), which is minor for a simple listing tool.

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 tool takes no parameters, so per the baseline this dimension is satisfied. The schema confirms an empty argument object and there is nothing further for the description to explain about inputs.

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 ('List') and resource ('MCP/Toolbox tools configured in Msty Studio'), so the agent knows exactly what it enumerates. It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from related siblings such as export_tool_config or list_studio_catalogue.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs an inventory of configured tools. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the alternative tool-config tools the agent might otherwise pick.

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