List clients

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the HTTP endpoint path; it says nothing about result volume, pagination, ordering, or whether the listing is workspace-scoped — behavior an agent would need before calling.

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?

One short sentence with the endpoint in parentheses — front-loaded, zero filler, nothing redundant. It is terse to the point of thinness, but no sentence 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 read tool with annotations and no output schema, the essentials are present, but the description never indicates the shape or volume of the returned client list. An agent knows what it does but not what to expect back.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter meaning to convey. Baseline 4 applies because nothing is left undocumented.

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 clients") plus the underlying endpoint GET /v1/clients, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish this read from the sibling clients_create or clients_update, nor note that it returns all clients regardless of filtering.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the sibling clients_create/clients_update tools, and no mention of prerequisites such as workspace scoping or pagination. The agent must infer that this is the read-only listing counterpart purely from the name.

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