nexterm_list_engines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that token-bearing engine mutations are deliberately excluded from the listing, suggesting sensitive fields may be omitted — but says nothing about result shape, pagination, or what metadata is included beyond that exclusion.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the scope caveat follows immediately. Slightly terse given the unexplained concept of an "engine," but nothing is wasted.

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 with an empty input schema and no output schema, the description still leaves the agent unsure what an "engine" is or what fields the metadata contains. The exclusion note helps, but a single clause on the returned content would make it complete.

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 takes zero parameters (EmptyInput), so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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 specific verb and resource ("List Nexterm engine metadata"), which is enough for an agent to know this is a read-only enumeration tool. However, "engine" does not appear in any sibling tool name and the description doesn't clarify what an engine is or how it relates to entries, sources, or integrations, so differentiation from siblings is only indirect.

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 note that "token-bearing engine mutations are intentionally excluded" defines the tool's scope but not when to choose it over an alternative. There is no explicit alternative tool named (no sibling lists engines), so usage is only implied by the read-only listing framing.

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