list_available_servers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a list of server dictionaries with name, description, and status, which adds useful context about the output format. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation with no side effects, nor does it mention any authentication or rate-limit considerations. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states the action, second sentence describes the return value, third sentence gives usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 simplicity of the tool (zero parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It includes the source (Docker MCP catalog), the return structure, and the intended use case. No additional context is necessary for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.

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 the schema already fully documents parameters. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not mislead or miss anything.

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 identifies the tool's function: listing all available MCP servers from the Docker MCP catalog. It distinguishes from siblings like list_enabled_servers by specifying 'available' servers, and it names the specific resource (Docker MCP catalog). The verb 'list' is precise and the resource is unambiguous.

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 clear context: 'Use this to see what servers you can enable with enable_server.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (before enabling a server), effectively linking it to a related tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_enabled_servers, so it lacks a direct exclusions statement.

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