aprs_cmd_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'lists' tools, implying a read-only operation with no side effects, but it does not explicitly disclose safety characteristics or provide context about what happens when invoked. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose with no superfluous words. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 trivial nature (no parameters, clear purpose, and an output schema), the description is complete enough. It fully explains what the tool does, and the output schema handles return value documentation. There is no ambiguity.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information beyond what the schema provides, and it correctly omits any parameter details that would be irrelevant.

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 the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'APRS tools exposed by this MCP server.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform APRS operations (send, position, nearby, listen).

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 implies usage for discovering available tools but does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. Unlike the TDQS 4.3 example, there is no explicit exclusion or alternative reference. However, the tool's purpose is self-evident, so an agent can infer when to invoke it.

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