List Whatbox MCP Tools and Processes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the content: grouping by category/risk and the remote mutations flag. This helps the agent understand what data to expect, going beyond the annotation-only safety profile.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: one states the core function and output organization, the other gives a direct usage context. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema available, the description fully covers what the tool does and its intended use. The mention of grouping and remote-mutation status is sufficient contextual detail for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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, so there is nothing to document. Per rubric, baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none 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 tool returns the full tool catalog, grouped by category and risk, and indicates whether remote mutations are enabled. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like list_capabilities. The verb 'Return' plus resource 'full tool catalog' makes the purpose explicit.

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 explicitly ties the tool to backing the '/tools' command, giving a clear use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool for catalog listing. The lack of exclusionary guidance prevents a 5.

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