dsh_runtime_list_tools

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 clarifies scope (currently bridged) and naming convention, but doesn't explicitly state the return format or that it's a read-only operation. 'List' implies non-mutating, but output structure is not disclosed.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, with no filler. Every word contributes to clarity.

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, this description covers the essential purpose and distinguishing naming convention. It doesn't detail return values, but the tool's simplicity makes this omission acceptable.

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 is empty with zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable. The baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter explanation is needed.

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 uses the specific verb 'List', identifies the resource as 'DSH tools currently bridged onto this MCP server', and notes the naming pattern 'dsh__* names'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling plugin catalog and runtime management tools.

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 implies the tool is for viewing the current runtime bridge state, which is distinct from plugin list/search tools. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but 'currently bridged' provides clear situational context.

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