list_available_clients

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool lists all available client types and provides a short description of each, which conveys the read-only nature and output format. It does not mention any side effects or additional behaviors, but for a simple list operation this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence adds valuable context about what client types are for, earning its place. No redundant words or filler.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (all client types with short descriptions) and why they matter (HTTP/API requests). No additional context is required for the agent to use it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed.

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 tool's verb ('List'), resource ('all available clearskies client types'), and output ('with a short description of each'). It also clarifies what client types are used for, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_client_info.

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 context about client types (used for HTTP/API requests), implying when this tool might be relevant, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_client_info or other list_available_* tools. No exclusions or explicit 'use when' guidance is provided.

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