list_tools_for_scope

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior (listing filtered tools) and the wildcard behavior, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation with no side effects, nor describe the return format. The provided scope list adds useful behavioral context.

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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the purpose, the second explains usage, and the third lists accepted values. No filler or redundant information.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is largely complete for invocation. It could be slightly enhanced by mentioning the return type or that it is safe/read-only, but the essentials are covered.

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 already describes the 'scopes' parameter, but the description adds significant value by enumerating all valid scope values and the wildcard option. This goes beyond the schema, which only provides a generic example, and compensates for the lack of enums in the schema.

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 available MCP tools filtered by delegation scope, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available MCP tools'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tasks or list_profiles, which list domain-specific entities.

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 explains when to use the tool ('Pass your delegation scopes to see which tools you can use') and enumerates valid scope values, including a wildcard for all tools. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the tool's unique purpose and scope-filtering mechanism make the usage context clear.

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