native_tools_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral caveat: that a name appearing in the list does not confirm the underlying operation works. It says nothing about ordering, size, or whether results are static across a session.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. The second clause is telegraphic to the point of ambiguity, but the brevity itself is not wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place to learn that the result is names (not metadata or status). It conveys that much, but for a tool with an undocumented filter parameter and dozens of sibling listing/inspection tools, it stops short of what an agent needs to call it confidently.

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 0% and the single 'query' parameter has no description, no enum, and only a maxLength of 200. The prose never mentions 'query' at all, so an agent gets no idea what it filters on (substring? prefix? name only?) or that omitting it returns everything.

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 (read) and resource (installed native tool names), so an agent can tell this is a listing operation rather than an inspection one. It never names the obvious sibling, native_tool_inspect, so the boundary is left implicit.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as native_tool_inspect for a single tool. The clause 'availability does not verify an operation' is a caveat about interpretation, not a statement of when to call this versus something else.

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