dev_list_allowed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context beyond that by specifying the return structure ('endpoint entries grouped by method') and mentioning 'active deny rules,' which gives insight into what the tool reveals. This is useful behavioral transparency without contradicting the annotations.

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 and well-structured: three sentences that cover purpose, return content, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or repetition of schema/annotations.

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 parameters, no output schema, clear annotations), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it, and how it relates to sibling tools. No important context is missing.

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 fully covers parameter semantics. The description correctly avoids redundant parameter info. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools, and no deduction is needed.

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's purpose: 'List all API operations (method + path) that this MCP instance is authorized to call.' It uses a specific verb ('list'), names the resource ('API operations'), and scopes it ('authorized to call'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning dev_read_api and the typed shortcut tools.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this to discover what's available before calling dev_read_api, or to verify an endpoint path.' It also directs users to check typed shortcut tools first, stating 'check those first before reaching for the generic proxies.' This clearly explains when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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