List Tools for Delegation Scope

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no note on result size, ordering, or how filtering interacts with the caller's actual permissions — so it is only minimally additive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the scope enumeration. The long scope list is dense but each item is load-bearing since no enum is present in the schema.

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 single-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the definition supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly: the action, the accepted values, and the wildcard escape hatch. Return-shape details are unnecessary given the absence of an output schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already has an inline example, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by enumerating the full set of 16 valid scope values and the ['*'] wildcard, which the schema does not list — meaningful added semantics for an un-enumerated string array.

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 available MCP tools') plus the filtering dimension ('by delegation scope'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from other list_* siblings such as list_agents or list_profiles. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Pass your delegation scopes to see which tools you can use' gives a clear trigger for calling the tool, and the wildcard instruction ('Use [*] for all tools') covers the broad-query case. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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