sentinel_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 of behavioral disclosure. It names list output fields (fingerprint status, trust level) but doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation (likely given 'list'), whether it requires any auth/permissions, whether it hits all registered servers or follows any ordering/pagination, or what the response format looks like. For a listing tool this is moderately critical since agents may rely on it to understand what tools exist.

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 clear sentence that front-loads the purpose and adds the relevant returned fields. Zero wasted words, no redundancy with the name or schema.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter and full schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. However, the lack of any annotation coverage shifts more burden onto the description to state read-only safety and whether tool access is gated, which it doesn't address. The output schema is absent, so return-format details beyond the two named fields are unknown, though that's partially reasonable for a list endpoint.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional parameter 'serverName' is described as 'Filter by server name' in the schema. The tool description adds the queryable scope ('all registered servers'), which aligns with the filter parameter but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema already documents the parameter well.

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 has a clear verb+resource ('List all discovered tools') with meaningful scope ('across all registered servers'). It specifies what's included ('fingerprint status and trust level'), which adds useful detail. It's related to sentinel_list_servers but describes a distinct resource (tools vs servers), so the differentiation is mostly implicit rather than explicit.

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 this is a discovery/listing tool useful for browsing available tools, but there's no explicit statement of when to use this versus alternatives like sentinel_list_servers or sentinel_list_policy_rules. The context is clear enough but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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