list_available_tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's return-value detail adds context but largely duplicates the output schema. No auth, rate-limit, or pagination behavior is disclosed.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the whole definition is short. The return-dict breakdown is somewhat redundant given the output schema, costing a little space.

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 parameterless read-only listing tool, the definition is adequate: annotations cover the safety profile and the output schema covers return values. The main gap is the absence of guidance on when to prefer this over the sibling execution tool.

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%, and the parameter's own description is thorough, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'with their signatures' loosely hints at the include_descriptions toggle but adds nothing beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: lists all available tools from connected MCP servers, adding the useful detail 'with their signatures.' However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling execute_composed_code, leaving the agent to infer the distinction between enumerating tools and executing composed code.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives. The only usage hint ('Skip if you already have tool descriptions from schemas') lives in the schema's parameter description, not in the tool description itself.

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