list_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It clarifies that disabled tools never appear (authoritative for availability), which is key behavioral context. However, it does not state whether the list is read-only or if calling it has side effects, but given it is a list tool, that is minimally expected.

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 sentences, one short and one longer but packed with meaning. It is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first line. Could be slightly more concise by merging the second sentence's insight, but overall 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?

Given zero parameters, a simple output (list of tools), and no output schema needed for completeness, the description effectively explains what the tool returns and its significance. No major gaps; the sibling list shows many tools, and this one is clearly distinct for server introspection.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter section inherently needs no extra explanation. The description does not add anything about parameters, but baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema fully covers them.

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 is highly specific: it states the tool lists every tool the MCP server advertises, and distinguishes itself by clarifying what 'disabled' means — a tool not registered isn't just hidden but never existed, which contrasts with potential sibling tools that might have error-handling for disabled features.

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 recommends use as a 'single authoritative check of what's actually available right now', but does not mention when NOT to use it or alternative tools for related purposes. Siblings like get_status are different in focus, so implied usage is clear but exclusions are missing.

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