list_remote_bundles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior: 'metadata' implies it returns metadata rather than content, and 'currently loaded' indicates a snapshot of the server's state. It doesn't discuss pagination or ordering, but given the annotation coverage, this is adequate; the description provides some value 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no redundant wording. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 parameterless, read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It specifies what is returned (metadata), the scope (remote bundles), and the state (currently loaded). No critical information is missing for this level of complexity.

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, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. There is nothing for the description to add about parameters, and it makes no misleading claims. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'remote bundles', and adds the qualifier 'currently loaded into the server', which distinguishes it from the sibling 'list_bundles' (likely local bundles). The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 clear context about when to use it: when you need metadata for remote bundles that are loaded. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like 'list_bundles', though the word 'remote' implicitly differentiates. This is clear context without explicit exclusions, fitting the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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