list-tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses the core behavior: a read-only enumeration of available tools with their descriptions and usage examples. It does not mention output format, ordering, or potential response size, but for a simple discovery tool this is sufficient.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words. The verb and resource are front-loaded ('List all available tools'), followed immediately by the value proposition ('with descriptions and usage examples').

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 introspection tool, this description is complete: it states the action, the scope ('all available tools'), and the content of the returned information. No output schema exists, but the description itself sufficiently specifies what the agent will receive.

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 and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter meaning to convey. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description correctly omits irrelevant parameter details.

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 action 'List all available tools' and explicitly defines the output contents: descriptions and usage examples. This distinguishes it clearly from the sibling utility tools like echo, timestamp, and math, which perform concrete operations rather than discovery.

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 makes the usage context obvious: use this tool to discover what tools are available and how to invoke them. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but as a parameterless meta-tool, sibling alternatives are unlikely to be confused with it.

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