List Drivers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that it 'shows which drivers are ready,' which gives some output context. However, it does not elaborate on the return format or meaning of 'ready,' providing only marginal value beyond annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('List all available device drivers') and then a brief usage context. Every word earns its place, making it highly 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 list tool with strong annotations (readOnly, non-destructive), the description is sufficiently complete. It states the resource type, the scope ('all'), and the practical use ('shows which drivers are ready'). The lack of an output schema is not a gap because the description gives a reasonable expectation of the result, and the tool is simple.

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 the rule for 0 params is a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information (none needed), and with schema coverage at 100% (empty schema fully covers the parameter space), the score appropriately reflects that no additional meaning is required.

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 'all available device drivers' with the clarifying parenthetical '(protocol integrations)'. It differentiates from sibling tools like list_devices and list_apps by specifying the resource type precisely.

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 a clear usage context: 'Useful for troubleshooting — shows which drivers are ready.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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