list_mcp_server_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required MCP privilege, an important authorization constraint, and lists the returned fields, providing useful behavioral context. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, but the verb 'List' implies no mutation, and for a simple list tool this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and includes essential contextual detail (the MCP privilege). There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well structured.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing return fields. It includes the purpose and a permission prerequisite, but omits exact input parameter semantics and any error conditions. This is adequate for a straightforward list operation but leaves some gaps.

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 a single required 'handle' parameter with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explicitly define what 'handle' refers to, though it implies it identifies the MCP server. This under-specification fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 tool lists tools attached to an AI Hub MCP server, using the specific verb 'List' and identifying the resource. It also enumerates the output fields (id, name, description, vua_required), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_mcp_servers or get_mcp_server.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to view tools associated with a specific MCP server) and notes a prerequisite (needs MCP privilege). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions but provides clear context.

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