mesh_list_realms

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It is unusually candid: it promises no pending-join entries, no bearer credentials, and notes that refresh_token/cert_pem stay local-file-only. This goes beyond what a typical read/list schema would state.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then exclusions and routing. Parentheticals add justified context without fluff; every sentence 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 zero-parameter list, the description is complete: it names all returned fields, explicitly denies sensitive/pending content, and tells the agent how to perform the one adjacent action (joining) that is intentionally not exposed. No output schema exists, but the field list substitutes for 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?

With zero parameters, the schema has nothing to document. The description compensates by describing the output fields (realm name, org identity/handle, join time, tier), which is the only parameter-adjacent information an agent could need.

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?

States a specific verb-resource pair with an exact scope: 'Every realm this identity currently holds a confirmed membership for' and enumerates the returned fields (realm name, handle, join time, tier). This clearly differentiates it from mesh_join_realm and any room/station listing 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?

Explicitly tells the agent when not to use it (never for pending joins) and routes new-realm creation away from any tool: 'run macula-mcp-realm join <name> directly, a human action, never something this conversation can trigger.' This is stronger than most sibling definitions.

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