list_api_definitions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the conditional return shapes (`files` vs `entries`), plus `totalMatched`, `truncated`, and `nextCursor` pagination. However, it says nothing about read-only safety, default page size when `maxFiles` is unset, or what happens on an invalid cursor, leaving real gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 dense sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is somewhat run-on in packing return shapes and pagination together, but every clause conveys usable information.

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 usefully explains return values and pagination, which is the key missing structured data. It is nearly complete for a list tool, lacking only safety/permission context and default-limit behavior.

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 88%, so the schema already documents nearly all eight parameters; baseline is 3. The description reinforces the relationship between `includeCatalogMeta`/`query` and the `entries` shape and the `nextCursor`-to-`cursor` round-trip, but that is largely restating the schema rather than adding new meaning.

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 (List) and resource (YAML API definition files) with an explicit scope (`.mcp/api/`), so an agent can distinguish it from read_api_definition, which reads a single file. It does not name a sibling directly, but the scope makes the passive enumeration role unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given; the agent must infer that this is for discovery/enumeration versus reading or converting a definition. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g. workspaceRoot/MCP_WORKSPACE_ROOT) beyond what the schema itself already provides.

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