List pinned MCP servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: this view is read-only in the sense that the agent cannot act on pending changes at all, since only the user can accept them, in a terminal. That authority boundary is the kind of thing annotations cannot express.

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, both load-bearing: the first defines the payload, the second defines the authority limit. The most decision-relevant information (what is returned) is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value enumeration is not strictly required, and annotations cover the read-only posture. For a no-arg listing tool this is nearly complete; the only soft spot is that 'waiting for review' is left without any pointer to how review is resolved (beyond 'user, in a terminal').

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 precise resource (MCP servers pinned by the toolmoat proxy) and enumerates exactly what the view surfaces: per-server pinned tool counts and pending tool changes. The subject matter is naturally disjoint from the scan_*/list_rules siblings, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it never says 'use this first to see what is pinned' or contrasts itself with scan_installed. The one routing hint is negative — that accepting changes is not possible here and must be done by the user in a terminal — which is useful but is an exclusion, not a when-to-use rule.

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