list_api_clients

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is helpful but not explicit. It does not mention pagination, filtering, permissions, or return format, so transparency is adequate but not rich.

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, well-formed sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes to meaning, and there is no wasted text or redundancy.

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 no-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and definition. It lacks explicit return-field details, but the definition of API clients provides enough context for the agent to proceed. The complexity is low, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what an API client is, which helps interpret the list results, even though no parameter-specific semantics are needed.

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' and resource 'API clients', and adds clarifying context by defining them as 'credentialed consumers that call API-Platform endpoints.' This distinguishes it from other list tools like list_connections or list_folders and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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—when you need to see API clients—but provides no explicit 'when to use' statement or alternatives. Since no other API client management tool exists among siblings, there is no confusion, but the guidance is only implied rather than stated.

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