List All User Tools

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

Annotations already declare the tool as safe, read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the scope ('all tools', 'current user') but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as what 'available' means, whether it includes MCP tools, or response format. Since annotations cover safety, 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?

A single clear sentence that immediately conveys the action and scope. No filler words or redundancy.

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 simple zero-parameter list tool with strong annotations, the description covers the core behavior. However, with no output schema, it does not mention what the response contains (e.g., tool names, metadata). This is a minor gap but does not undermine usability.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema imposes no burden. The description does not need to explain parameter syntax; the empty schema is complete. Baseline of 4 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'all tools available to the current user', making the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like lyzr_list_tools or lyzr_get_all_tools, but the scope ('current user') provides some distinction.

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 information is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like lyzr_list_tools or lyzr_get_tools_actions. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without guidance for tool selection.

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