list_tool_safety

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a non-mutating read operation, which is transparent, but the description does not explain the effect of include_hidden, whether permissions are needed, or what the output format is. It meets the minimum bar but adds little beyond the inherent read-only nature of the verb.

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 efficient sentence, front-loaded with the key information. It earns its place without wasted words. However, it could benefit from elaboration on parameters or context, which would not make it overly long.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and one parameter with no explanation, the description is too sparse to fully inform an agent. It does not clarify what safety levels are, how results are returned, or how include_hidden changes behavior. For such a minimal tool, some additional context would be expected.

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 mention the include_hidden parameter at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory (including hidden items), but its exact meaning and default behavior are left unspecified. The description fails to compensate for the schema's complete lack of explanation.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List safety levels for public McuBuddy tools.' It clearly states what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_validation_records or list_connected_probes, though the subject matter is distinct enough.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states the action. This is a clear gap for an agent deciding between sibling tools.

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