List tools of a server

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 does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free, though the nature of listing tools implies it. The description could be more transparent about safety or permissions.

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 concise, with two sentences that convey the purpose and a relevant usage hint. No unnecessary 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 tool, the description is sufficient. It states the action and hints at follow-up steps. The lack of an output schema means the description does not need to explain return values, and the sample parameter description adds context. Slightly more detail on what is included in the list would be beneficial, but it's adequate.

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 sole parameter 'server' has a description in the schema ('Server name from list_servers'), which already provides clear meaning. The description adds no extra detail but does not need to; the schema coverage is complete.

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 lists tools of a specified MCP server, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_servers and get_tool_schema. The verb 'list' and resource 'tools of one MCP server' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

It provides a usage hint: 'Use get_tool_schema before calling a tool for the first time,' which guides the agent on follow-up actions. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool (e.g., when needing server list), though the sibling tools make this somewhat implicit.

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