toolset_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only 'report' action that exposes current registration state and a count, with no suggestion of side effects. The explanatory clause ('answers how much surface is exposed right now') sets accurate expectations about the tool's output focus. It stops short of a 5 because it does not describe internal details like what qualifies as 'active' or whether the count includes the reporting tool itself.

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 a single sentence that leads with the action and object, then adds a compact, relatable framing ('answers backslash backslash how much surface is exposed right now'). Every element contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition. It is both concise and well-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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient information to invoke it correctly: it names the report's content (active toolsets, registration modules, live count) and the semantic intent. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly describing the return format or acknowledging that it is a snapshot of the current process, but these are minor omissions for such a simple tool.

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 has zero parameters and an empty schema, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description needs to add no parameter-level meaning because there are none to document. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate, as there are no parameter interactions to explain.

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 'Report' and the specific resources: 'active toolsets and registration modules, plus the live registered tool count.' It even provides a concrete question the tool answers ('how much surface is exposed right now'), making its purpose unmistakable. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are Spotify operations rather than introspection reports.

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 implies when to use the tool—whenever an agent needs to know the currently exposed toolset surface and registration state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but given the tool's unique meta-purpose among the large sibling list, the context is clear. A 5 would require explicit exclusions or alternative routing, which are not present.

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