hide_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it is minimal. It does not disclose whether hiding is reversible, how patterns are matched (regex vs glob), what happens if both 'tools' and 'pattern' are provided, if at least one parameter is required, or what the outcome of hiding is (e.g., session-only, affecting agent's visible tools). This lack of detail prevents the agent from understanding the tool's behavior.

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 that clearly conveys the core purpose without redundant words. It is appropriately short for a simple tool and is well-structured.

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?

The description is incomplete for an agent to use the tool correctly. It does not specify intended usage constraints, such as whether at least one of 'tools' or 'pattern' must be provided, how pattern matching is evaluated, or any side effects. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more operational context, but it does not.

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 schema descriptions for 'tools' and 'pattern' are explicit ('Specific tool names to hide' and 'Pattern to match tool names'), so schema coverage is 100%. The overall description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not omit any parameter details either, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 action 'hide' with the resource 'tools' and the two methods: 'by pattern or specific names.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'show_tools' and other unrelated tools in the list.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the sibling tool 'show_tools' as a counterpart, nor does it explain any context or prerequisites for hiding tools. The usage is only implied by the tool's name.

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