list_enabled_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('list of tool dictionaries with name, description, and server info') and hints at behavior by stating it reflects currently enabled servers. However, it does not explicitly confirm a read-only, side-effect-free operation or discuss any potential latency or server communication, leaving some transparency gap.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The first sentence states what the tool does, the second explains the return value and usage context. No wasted words.

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 tool, the description is complete: purpose, return value, and when to use it. An output schema exists, but the description already covers return details. It could be slightly richer about whether it causes any state change, but overall it is adequate.

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 accepts zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter detail. It correctly focuses on behavior and return values.

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 is explicit: 'List all available tools from currently enabled servers.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_available_servers (which lists servers, not tools) and discover_gateway_tools (which is gateway-specific).

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 usage context: 'Use this after enabling servers to see what tools are available.' This implies a workflow step and differentiates from alternative tools for listing servers. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient.

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