list_available_api_methods

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context by mentioning it uses standard system.listMethods introspection and points out the non-standard nature of other methods. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, though 'list' strongly implies no side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. The first sentence states what it does, the second provides usage guidance. There is no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, how it works (via system.listMethods), and when to use it. The lack of output schema is fine because the description implies a list of method names as the return value.

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, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 states the tool lists every XML-RPC method the TestLink server exposes via system.listMethods. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every XML-RPC method'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on introspection of available methods.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: to check availability of non-standard methods before calling update_test_suite, delete_test_suite, delete_test_case, delete_test_plan, and close_build. It also explains why (those methods are not part of every stock TestLink installation), providing clear context.

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