mimry_list_adapters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' reasonably conveys a read-only, non-mutating operation, and mentioning both active and planned adapters gives useful scope context, but nothing is said about permissions, ordering, or whether the list is scoped to the current workspace.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier and purpose are packed efficiently. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and this is a simple one-parameter list tool. However, with zero annotations and an undocumented parameter, the definition leaves an agent without enough to know the effect of active_only or the intended call context.

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 0% for the single parameter 'active_only', so the description must compensate and does not. It says the tool lists active and planned adapters but never explains that the boolean toggles between those two result sets.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('MIMRY adapter plugins'), and adds scope ('active and planned') plus purpose ('for coding-agent routing'). No sibling tool lists adapters, so differentiation is achieved by the resource itself despite the crowded mimry_* namespace.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The one implicit decision point (narrowing to active-only) is neither named nor connected to the parameter that controls it.

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