tool_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions filtering modes but omits crucial details: whether results are paginated, what 'registered tools' means (user-specific? global?), if the tool has side effects, or if authentication is required. The description does not contradict any missing annotations, but it leaves significant behavioral gaps for a list/query operation.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action ('List registered tools') and then enumerates filtering capabilities concisely. No extraneous content; every phrase adds value. A slight deduction because the list of filters could be more explicitly structured (e.g., colons or bullets) to aid scanning, but for a single sentence it is efficient.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description carries a heavy burden. It covers only the high-level filtering functionality but does not describe return format, pagination behavior, default sorting, or whether the tool returns all tools or only those the agent has access to. For a discovery/query tool, this leaves important contextual gaps that the agent must guess.

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 100%, meaning each of the 5 parameters already has inline documentation. The description adds high-level context by grouping parameters into three filtering dimensions, but does not add new meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate here.

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-resource pair ('List registered tools') and immediately distinguishes itself by listing three distinct filtering dimensions (type, category, full-text search). This clarity is strong even among sibling tools like 'tool_create' and 'tool_call', making it easy for an agent to recognize this as a discovery/query tool.

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 explicitly lists three filtering capabilities, which signals usage scenarios (e.g., when you need to find a tool by text or filter by type). However, there is no mention of when not to use this tool versus alternatives like 'toolkit_search', 'skill_list', or 'list_agents'—leaving the agent to infer those boundaries from names alone.

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