rm_list_clients

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. However, the description itself adds no behavioral context, such as pagination behavior, archived filtering, or what is included in the list, so it provides no transparency beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is efficient. But it is so minimal that it essentially restates the tool's purpose without adding explanatory value, making it concise but under-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?

For a simple, read-only list operation with all-optional parameters and an output schema, the basic call is understandable. Still, the description does not clarify the archived filter semantics, pagination defaults, or the meaning of the openWorldHint annotation, leaving moderate gaps for non-default use.

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 0% and the description does not explain page, archived, or per_page. The parameter names and defaults offer some self-evident meaning, but the definition does not compensate for the coverage gap, especially for the ambiguous 'archived' parameter.

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 uses a clear verb+resource construction, 'List clients,' which unambiguously identifies the operation as returning the collection of clients. It is distinguishable from siblings like rm_get_client or rm_list_client_contacts by its resource and plural form, but it adds no detail about scope or filtering, so it does not reach a 5.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools such as rm_get_client or rm_list_client_contacts, and any usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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