List Tools

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds useful context about the return format ('names and descriptions') and the scope of listing, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or pagination. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first sentence states the purpose and parameter usage, and the second provides a clear alternative. It's front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter), rich annotations covering safety and behavior, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clarifies the return format and sibling differentiation, but could mention if the list is paginated or sorted. Still, it's adequate for the context.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter. The description adds no extra parameter details beyond what's in the schema, but it reinforces the semantics by explaining the effect of omitting the server parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('tools'), specifies the scope ('from a specific backend' or 'all tools across all backends'), and distinguishes it from sibling gateway_search_tools by noting the latter provides 'ranked results with full schemas'. This is specific and avoids tautology.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (list tools with names and descriptions) versus an alternative (gateway_search_tools for ranked results with full schemas). The guidance on omitting the server parameter to list all tools provides clear context for usage.

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