get_tools_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses only the return scope ('tool folders and counts') and a usage hint. It does not mention the optional include_tools behavior, what the counts represent, or any implications of calling it, leaving the agent to guess at the tool's full behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler: the first states the action and scope, the second states when to call it. The usage cue is front-loaded immediately after the purpose, and every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter listing tool the definition is serviceable: it states the return object at a high level ('tool folders and counts') and the intended call timing. However, with no output schema, no explanation of the sole parameter, and no explicit routing away from get_tools_by_folder or get_tools_search, an agent could still misuse it.

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% and the description never mentions include_tools, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap. The parameter name is self-explanatory and the default is sensible, but the description adds no meaning about what including tools actually yields (full tool details vs. names only).

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List tool folders and counts') that clearly signals an overview-style tool rather than a tool-level lookup. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_tools_by_folder and get_tools_search, but it never names them, leaving some differentiation to inference.

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?

'Use this before loading a tool folder' provides a clear trigger condition for when the tool is appropriate. It gives useful context but stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so exclusions are absent.

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