list_installed_mcp_tools

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only operation with no open-world or destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns only operator-enabled tools, includes tool descriptions and input schemas, and warns that starting a server can take several seconds.

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 compact and front-loaded: it first defines the returned resource, then explains the next action, then gives a latency caveat. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 simple read-only listing tool with a complete input schema, existing output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough context about content, follow-up invocation, and latency. No critical invocation detail is missing.

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 single required parameter is fully described in the schema as the registered project id returned by list_projects. The description mentions 'for this project' but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource and scope: local MCP servers installed for a specific project, limited to operator-enabled tools with their descriptions and input schemas. It also distinguishes the listing action from the follow-up invocation tool by naming call_installed_mcp_tool.

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?

Usage is clear: use this tool to inspect installed local MCP servers, then call one via call_installed_mcp_tool. It does not explicitly cover when not to use it or list alternative discovery tools, but the intended workflow is easy to infer.

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