list_agent_tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-schema context: these are serverUrl integrations, not MCP tools, and a saved tool is only invocable when its id appears in a node's toolsIds. It omits any hint about response shape or pagination, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose plus the 'NOT MCP tools' disambiguation are front-loaded before the routing advice.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the critical distinctions (MCP vs saved HTTP tools, callability precondition, sibling routing). Only minor gaps remain: no note on what the listing returns or on agentId sourcing.

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 0% and the single required parameter (agentId) is undocumented in the schema. The description implies agent scoping ('saved on a Convocore agent') but never states the identifier's form or where to obtain it (e.g., from list_agents), so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List HTTP/API tools saved on a Convocore agent') and explicitly disclaims a common confusion: 'These are NOT MCP tools.' An agent can distinguish this from get_agent, get_agent_tool, and search_mcp_tools without opening the schema.

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?

Names explicit alternatives and the conditions that select them: MCP catalog discovery goes to search_mcp_tools, testing goes to test_agent_tool / test_agent_tool_request. It also clarifies a callability precondition (id must be in a node toolsIds), which prevents misuse.

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