list_operations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not restate those. It does add the output format, which gives useful context about the response structure. However, it doesn't disclose any limits or pagination behavior, and the openWorldHint could imply a broad scope that the description doesn't elaborate on. Overall, it adds some value but not substantial behavioral detail.

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, tightly packed sentence. It leads with the core action, immediately specifies the resource, and then gives the exact output format. There is zero waste, and every element adds value.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns and in what format. The query parameter is already documented in the schema, and the read-only nature is covered by annotations. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema already provides a full description of the 'query' parameter (case-insensitive filter on method, path, summary) with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies. No extra context is given about the query's behavior or syntax.

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 a specific verb 'List' and a specific resource 'All Quiet API operations', and even specifies the exact output format (`METHOD path — summary [required key scope]`). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_operation or call_*.

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 states what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for discovering available operations, nor does it point to describe_operation for details on a specific operation. The usage context is implied but not articulated.

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