list_available_input_outputs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It states that the tool returns a list with short descriptions, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly affirm non-mutating behavior or address any side effects. The domain explanation adds some context, but safety expectations are not stated.

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 front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, and the following two sentences provide necessary domain context about handlers. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 listing tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose and domain context. It does not rely on annotations (which are absent) and adequately prepares the agent for what the tool does, though it could clarify what 'available' means (e.g., registered handlers), a minor gap.

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 is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what input/output handlers are, giving the agent context to interpret the returned list, even though there are no parameters to document.

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 action ('List all available...'), the specific resource ('input/output handlers'), and the scope ('all available... with a short description of each'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_input_output_info, which would provide detailed info on a single handler.

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 what input/output handlers are, implying this tool is for discovering available handlers. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_input_output_info, nor does it mention any exclusions or specific scenarios.

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