list_available_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'list all available security tools with descriptions,' omitting crucial details such as whether the operation is read-only, if pagination applies, or any authorization requirements. The agent cannot infer safety or side-effect profile from this minimal text.

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 of five words that immediately communicates the tool's core action. No wasted words; every part is essential.

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 has zero parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description is mostly complete for a simple listing tool. It could benefit from mentioning the output format (e.g., an array of tool names and descriptions) to reduce uncertainty, but the current text is sufficient for basic understanding.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by clarifying the purpose beyond the empty schema, but no parameter-level detail is needed.

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 'List' and the resource 'security tools with descriptions,' making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like run_security_tool and get_job_status by focusing on listing rather than execution or status checks.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't suggest using this tool before run_security_tool to discover available options, nor does it indicate when not to use it. The description lacks contextual cues for appropriate use.

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