cigchat_list_toolsets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the return content (toolsets, tool counts, enabled status) and implies a read-only operation via 'List.' However, it does not mention permissions, authentication needs, or potential data sensitivity, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 long, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the second sentence provides a practical use case. No unnecessary words or repetition; it efficiently conveys both functionality and diagnostic purpose.

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's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description covers everything necessary: what is listed, the details returned, and a clear usage scenario. It is fully complete for an operation of this complexity, even without sibling comparisons or additional context.

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 input schema is empty. The description adds no parameter-level details, but none are needed. The description clarifies the tool's scope and output, providing sufficient semantic context for a parameterless operation.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('toolset this server can expose') and specifies the exact output fields (tool count, enabled status). It distinguishes itself from other list tools by focusing on server-level toolsets rather than domain entities like tags or templates.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this when a tool you expected is missing — the toolset may be off.' It lacks when-not-to-use instructions or named alternatives, but the context is clear and actionable.

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