server_list_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately states the read-only listing behavior, but it does not disclose potential caveats like pagination, inclusion of parameter schemas, or scope limitations. The description is minimally transparent for a simple listing tool.

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, succinct sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without any redundant words or filler. It is perfectly concise and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no required parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it tells the agent what will be returned (tools and descriptions). However, it omits mention of the filtering options and the return format details, leaving minor gaps in context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the two optional parameters (search and category), so the schema already explains their meaning. The tool description adds no extra semantic value for parameters, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 uses the verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'all available tools with descriptions,' clearly stating the tool's function. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like marketplace_discover_tools, though the 'server_' prefix hints at the 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as server_openapi_spec or marketplace_discover_tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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