list_public_methods

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states it lists 'released v2 public' methods, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, filtering, or whether it requires authentication. A neutral score due to no contradictions.

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 with 7 words, conveying the core purpose concisely. It is front-loaded with the action 'List'. Could be slightly more specific about the resource.

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 zero parameters and an output schema, the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks context about what 'public' means or if authentication is needed. Adequate but minimal.

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% with 0 parameters. The description adds no parameter info beyond the schema, but baseline is 4 for tools with zero parameters. No additional semantics needed.

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', the resource 'released v2 public FPGA MCP methods', and specifies the scope as 'released v2 public'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workflows, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar listing tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as list_workflows or list_registered_toolchains. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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