list_tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the two response modes and their contents, and the important operational fact that the tool can be called before identity binding.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and scoping, and most sentences carry routing value. Slightly dense with several chained instructions, but there is little outright waste.

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 10-parameter read-only catalog tool with no output schema, the description covers mode selection, scope, and the identity precondition adequately, and routes to the correct follow-up tools. It does not describe pagination or volume limits, a minor gap given the breadth of the catalog.

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 100%, so all 10 parameters are already documented, and the schema even explains the lite default. The description largely restates the lite semantics and adds only marginal detail (workflows, relationships, direct-advertisement status) not covered elsewhere, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Discover') and resource ('complete governance capability catalog'), and immediately clarifies it includes names omitted from the initial progressive tools/list advertisement. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools describe_tool and use_tool, which it explicitly references.

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?

Gives explicit branching guidance: use the default lite=true for the compact handshake, lite=false for the richer catalog, describe_tool for one capability's parameters, and use_tool to invoke capabilities missing from the initial listing. It also states the precondition that it is callable before an identity is bound.

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