list_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the basic behavior (listing tools) but does not mention whether it is read-only, what the output format looks like, or any limitations (e.g., pagination, inclusion of hidden tools). Since it is a simple list operation, some of this may be inferred, but the lack of detail and absence of annotations keeps it at a mid-range score.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose and the optional filter. There is no unnecessary verbosity, and every word earns its place. It is perfectly concise and well-structured.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality adequately. It does not specify the exact return structure, but for a listing tool, 'List all available tools' implies a list of tool identifiers or names. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the return format could be helpful, but it is not a significant gap. Overall, it is reasonably complete.

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 already provides a complete description for the 'category' parameter ('Filter by tool category') with a defined enum and optional requirement. The description adds only the word 'optionally', which is already implied by the schema's required: false. Thus, the description adds no meaningful semantic value beyond the schema, matching the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 tool's function: 'List all available tools from tool-website, optionally filtered by category'. It uses a specific verb 'List' with a resource ('all available tools'), and the optional filter adds precision. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tool_schema or execute_tool, which serve different purposes.

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 gives a clear context: this tool is used to list tools, with an optional category filter. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is straightforward for a discovery tool. Since it lacks explicit when/when-not guidance, it doesn't earn a 5, but the clear functionality warrants a 4.

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