list_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists tools 'by category' and 'No API call,' which adds useful context about organization and local operation. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of the list), potential errors, or performance implications, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and key behavioral constraint ('No API call'). Every word earns its place, with no wasted text or 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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does and its local nature, but without annotations or output schema, it should ideally describe the return format (e.g., how tools are categorized). The description is minimal but functional for a low-complexity tool.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description does not need to explain parameters, and it appropriately avoids redundant information. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description adds value by clarifying the tool's scope without over-explaining.

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 available Storyblok MCP tools by category.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('Storyblok MCP tools'), and scope ('by category'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its many siblings (e.g., other fetch_* tools), which prevents a perfect score.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'No API call.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool (for local tool discovery without external requests) versus alternatives (sibling tools that make API calls). It effectively distinguishes this tool's context from others in the server.

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