list_all_mcps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly reveals that env values are redacted by default, explains the security rationale (preventing exfiltration), and notes the behavior when show_env_values=true is passed. This goes beyond a simple 'list' operation and gives the agent important safety context. However, it does not mention output format or any other side effects, which are minor for a read-only list tool.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds essential detail (redaction and parameter usage) without redundancy. 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 simple list tool with one optional boolean parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, source file, security behavior, and parameter semantics. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly without further clarification. The sibling tools are sufficiently differentiated by the 'all' scope.

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%, so the parameter is well-documented. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the default redaction behavior and the legitimate use case for revealing values ('when you legitimately need them'). This contextualizes the parameter's purpose and security implications, earning a score above the baseline.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all configured MCP servers from ~/.claude.json') and distinguishes from siblings by scope: it covers all servers, while siblings target individual servers (get_mcp_details), health checks, restarts, etc. This makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to enumerate all configured MCP servers. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is self-evident given the name and description. The redaction note adds usage context for the parameter but not for alternatives, so it stops short of a full when/when-not explanation.

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