list_webmcp_tools

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations: it discloses that each entry carries a permission field, that 'prompt' blocks on a consent modal for up to 5 minutes, and that 'deny' fails immediately. It also advises the agent to proactively inform the user about calls requiring approval, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 and purpose, followed by targeted behavioral guidance. Every sentence adds value, including the permission-field warning, without redundancy or filler.

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 optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns conceptually (entries with permission fields) and how to act on it. It does not enumerate all potential output fields, but the key decision-relevant information is present.

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 input schema already documents the single optional tabId parameter with 100% coverage. The description mentions the tab target but does not add format, default, or usage details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('WebMCP tools'), and a scope ('for a specific browser tab'). It also names the verification use case, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like call_webmcp_tool, list_scripts, and get_bridge_status.

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 explicitly says when to use it: to verify that an exported AgentScript is correctly registering its tools on the target page. It gives clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it misses the exclusionary guidance needed for a 5.

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