list_mcps

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

The description discloses the tool's output (status, capabilities, intent_type routes) but does not mention any side effects, permissions, or read-only nature. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; however, for a listing tool, the provided behavioral details are adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output details without any redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every part of the sentence is informative.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values (status, capabilities, intent_type routes). It lacks mention of ordering, pagination, or whether the list is complete, but for a simple listing tool, this is acceptable.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed as the schema is already fully covered. There is no missing semantic value.

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 the resource 'all specialist MCPs', and specifies the returned information: enabled/disabled status, capabilities, and intent_type routes. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_agents and list_skills by focusing on MCPs.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference sibling tools. While the tool's purpose is straightforward (listing MCPs), the lack of differentiation from similar listing tools like list_agents or list_skills limits its helpfulness for an agent deciding which tool to invoke.

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