list_toolsets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, satisfying the safety profile. The description adds value by noting it returns enabled status and serves discovery of capabilities. It doesn't elaborate on response structure, but that's not critical for this simple read-only listing tool.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first is a clear statement of purpose, the second provides usage context. No fluff or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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, read-only listing tool with strong annotations, the description is complete. It states what is returned (tool groups and enabled status) and when to use it (before configuration). No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently conveys the outcome.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate given no parameter info is required.

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 explicitly states the action ('List all available tool groups'), the resource ('tool groups'), and the specific output content ('their enabled status'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like enable_toolset by focusing on listing/discovery rather than modification.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Call this to discover additional capabilities before asking the user to configure anything.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke the tool and sets a clear prerequisite context (discovery before configuration).

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