list_clients

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions returns (client names, IDs, legacy IDs) but lacks critical behavioral details: pagination behavior, default sorting, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a list tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that covers purpose, optionality, and return values. It's appropriately sized for a list tool, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from return details.

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 list tool with 3 parameters (fully documented in schema) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks behavioral context (pagination, sorting, limits) and sibling differentiation. With no annotations, it should do more to compensate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond mentioning 'optional filters' generically. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the heavy lifting.

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 ('clients'), and mentions optional filters and return values. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_client' (singular) or 'list_client_documents', leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific list operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_client' or other list tools. It mentions optional filters but doesn't specify scenarios where filtering is appropriate or when to prefer this over other client-related tools.

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