list_demos

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 discloses the return format (JSON array with descriptions and example parameters) and an example result. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects, which would be useful for full transparency. The example helps, but the safety profile is not explicitly addressed.

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 well-structured with a main description, return specification, and example. It is not overly verbose, though the example section could be slightly tightened. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first line, and each section serves a purpose.

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 listing tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states what is being listed, the return type and content, and provides an example. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does or what it returns. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to detail return values, and the description still covers them.

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 coverage is 100% (vacuous). The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds context about the example invocation and return value, but since there are no input parameters to explain, the score aligns with the baseline.

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?

Description clearly states 'List all available demonstration workflows' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'multi-MCP orchestration capabilities', which separates it from list_available_skills, list_sessions, and list_mcp_workflow_templates.

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 clear context: it lists executable demos that showcase orchestration. It implies usage for discovering available demos, but does not explicitly say when to use it versus run_demo or when not to use it. Hence, clear context but no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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