list_agent_tools

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

Annotations are minimal (only a title), so the description carries the burden. It states the tool lists tools, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. It adds some context by mentioning related tools, but lacks detailed behavioral information.

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 zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidelines. It is front-loaded with the core function and efficiently structured, earning its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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 low complexity (one parameter, read-only implied), high schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and usage well, but could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., response format hints) to fully compensate for minimal annotations.

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%, with the single parameter 'agent_id' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or constraints), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 specific action ('List all tools') and resource ('for a specific agent'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_mcp_tools_by_server' (which lists tools by server) and 'attach_tool' (which adds tools). It precisely defines the tool's scope and function.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance by naming when to use alternatives: 'Use attach_tool to add more tools or list_mcp_tools_by_server to discover available tools.' This clearly differentiates this tool from its siblings and provides actionable context for selection.

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