get_chkp_mcp_server_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool connects via stdio and retrieves all available tools with metadata, which is a faithful representation of its read-only behavior. It does not detail error conditions or prerequisites, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second adding execution context. No filler words, and information is front-loaded.

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 tool with one well-described parameter and an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what it returns and how it operates. It doesn't over-specify, and the output schema covers return format, so the description is 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 single parameter `package_name` is already fully described in the input schema with an example, giving 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-level detail, so the schema carries the load; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Get all tools from a CheckPoint MCP server,' which clearly states the verb (get), resource (tools), and scope (from a CheckPoint MCP server). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_chkp_mcp_server_prompts and get_chkp_mcp_server_documentation.

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 implies when to use it (when you need the list of tools exposed by an MCP server) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, so guidance remains implicit.

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