list_registered_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this reflects the live MCP process, provides a concrete expected count, and gives diagnostic behavior for a misconfigured state. It stops short of stating the exact return shape, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for that detail.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one crisp sentence, and the extended diagnostic note is directly relevant to the tool's intended use as a registration check. The list of expected tools is somewhat long but serves as concrete verification criteria, though it could have been slightly trimmed without losing the key examples.

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, zero parameters, and available output schema, the description covers everything needed: what it returns, the expected baseline, the failure mode, and the recommended recovery action. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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, and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. The description adds no parameter-specific confusion and correctly implies that calling it requires no arguments. This matches the zero-parameter baseline.

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 first sentence states the exact action and resource: 'Return every tool name registered on this live MCP process.' This is a specific verb+resource pair and clearly distinguishes the tool from the domain-specific sibling tools, which operate on characters, pixels, and animations rather than listing the tool catalog.

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?

The description explicitly frames this as a cold-start check, specifies the expected tool count (45), names tools that must be present, and gives the exact failure condition ('Cursor shows ~28 tools or paint_* are missing'). It also tells the agent what to do ('restart SpriteMCP') and what NOT to do ('do not fall back to Shell/API/GenerateImage'), making the usage boundaries unambiguous.

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