Get All Tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description's 'List' is consistent. It adds the 'across providers' scope, but doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or any other behavioral traits; this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence, 'List all tools available across providers,' which is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It 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 read-only operation, the description is minimally adequate, but the lack of output schema and the existence of many sibling list tools create ambiguity about the exact return value and scope. It doesn't fully clarify how 'all tools' differs from lyzr_list_tools or lyzr_list_all_user_tools.

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 properties, so parameter semantics are trivially covered by the schema. Per the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter details.

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 'List all tools available across providers' uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource and scope ('all tools across providers'). It is clear but doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like lyzr_list_tools or lyzr_list_all_user_tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description doesn't mention when to choose this tool over alternative listing tools such as lyzr_list_tools, lyzr_list_org_agents, or lyzr_list_all_user_tools, which is a significant gap given the large sibling list.

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