list_download_clients

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a valuable transparency note: 'Credentials are redacted.' The verb 'List' also implies a read-only operation, though the description does not explicitly state the absence of side effects or other behavioral details.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, resource, returned fields, and the redaction behavior efficiently, earning every word.

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 list tool, the description is complete: it names the resource, the key output attributes, and the credential handling. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently conveys what an agent should expect when invoking the 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 takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics gap for the description to fill. The baseline of 4 applies because the input schema is empty and the description correctly focuses on behavior and return contents rather than parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and exact resource ('configured download clients'), then specifies the returned fields: category, priority, and removal settings. This clearly differentiates it from siblings such as test_download_clients, which tests connectivity rather than listing configuration.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a list of configured download clients and their settings is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent can route to this tool correctly.

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