list_counters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool lists names and current values, implying a read operation, but does not disclose whether it has side effects, performance implications, or authorization requirements. More explicit behavioral info (e.g., 'This is a safe, read-only operation') would improve transparency.

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, consisting of two sentences with no redundant words. The key purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description explains the tool's purpose and provides a usage context. However, it lacks information about the output format (e.g., structure of returned data) and does not mention any limitations. Given there is no output schema, this missing detail affects completeness.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (pid and sampleSeconds). The tool's description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('EventCounter names and current values') and scope ('all available'). It clearly states the tool's function but does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'get_event_counters', which sounds similar, causing potential confusion.

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 explicit context for when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover what metrics are available before calling get_memory_stats.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives for similar tasks, such as using get_event_counters instead.

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