os_mcp_select_toolsets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety/profile. The description adds only the outcome ('return tools/list filter guidance') without further behavioral context such as rate limits or auth needs. No contradiction with annotations, and with annotations present the bar is lower, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 with the verb and resource front-loaded. There is no wasted text, though it sacrifices detail for brevity, which is acceptable but not maximally informative.

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?

Despite having an output schema and read-only annotations, this is a 6-parameter meta-tool whose description does not explain the semantics of toolset selection, how query/toolset interact, or what 'filter guidance' means in practice. An agent would need to infer significant context from parameter names and schemas, so the description under-specifies the tool's behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 67% (4 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Given the high coverage, the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Select') and resource ('discovery toolsets') and states the output ('return tools/list filter guidance'). It is clear and distinct from most sibling tools, which are data lookups or descriptors, though it does not explicitly contrast with meta/descriptor tools like os_mcp_descriptor.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, not the circumstances that call for it, leaving the agent to infer use cases from the name and parameters.

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