list_analyzers

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavior disclosure, and it does: it reveals that analyzers are read from vis.config rather than a live Socket API, and that this family relies on writing config and restarting KingstVIS. This is useful context for understanding staleness or side effects. The only weakness is that the restart/write statement is phrased about the whole family, which could overgeneralize the read-only list operation.

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 and roughly 30 words, with the core subject front-loaded and the config/restart caveat placed second. No redundant filler is present, and the docs reference is a compact pointer to further detail.

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-argument listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies the data source (vis.config), the entry shape (slot/plugin/settings), and the operational context (config write/restart family). It does not spell out the exact return format, but the tool name and first sentence make that inferable, so the definition is complete enough for correct invocation.

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, so the empty schema fully covers the call signature. The description's mention of slot/plugin/settings refers to the shape of listed entries, which is additional output context rather than parameter documentation. Under the zero-parameter baseline this is adequate.

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 identifies the resource as 'Analyzers currently configured in vis.config' with fields slot/plugin/settings, which is exactly what a list operation should return. It also distinguishes from the sibling list_analyzer_plugins by emphasizing current configuration rather than available plugins. The noun-phrase style relies on the tool name for the verb, but together the intent is unambiguous.

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 implied use case is retrieving currently configured analyzers, which is clear from the first sentence. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance nor does it contrast with alternatives such as list_analyzer_plugins. The second sentence explains the config-file/restart mechanism for this tool family, which provides context but does not direct tool selection.

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