Clients list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, lowering the bar. The description still adds value beyond them: it discloses the 'clients.json' registry source, the 'Never a secret' security guarantee, and the implicit 'default' client behavior when no registry exists.

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?

Front-loads what the tool lists and its fields, followed by the security note and fallback behavior. Slightly dense and run-on in the middle, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape, which it does (client_id, label, sandbox, platforms). It also covers the edge case of no registry, leaving only the sibling-differentiation 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context about where the data comes from (registry file vs. implicit env-var-derived default) even though there is no parameter syntax to document.

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 resource (clients this server can work on) and enumerates the returned fields (client_id, label, sandbox, configured platforms), so an agent knows exactly what this yields. It does not differentiate from the sibling client_check or client_profile tools, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Provides a downstream usage tip ('Pass client_id to the other tools when several clients are listed') and explains the no-registry fallback, which is genuinely useful. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus client_check or client_profile, so selection between these sibling tools is left to inference.

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