list_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: no indication that it is a read-only enumeration, no auth/permission requirements, no pagination or result-size behavior, and no statement of what happens when the platform filter matches nothing.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight writing.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description should describe what the list contains (adapter names, IDs, supported platforms). It omits return shape entirely and gives no behavioral context, leaving an agent unable to predict results.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter. It does clarify that 'platform' is an optional filter rather than a required selector, which adds some meaning, but it never says what values are accepted (name, ID, slug?) or whether the match is exact.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'scanner tool adapters' are identifiable, but 'tool adapters' is internal jargon that an agent cannot confidently map to the sibling tools (detect_stack, search_checks, get_profile). It does not distinguish this listing tool from related lookups like get_check or search_checks.

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 phrase 'optionally for a platform' implies the parameter narrows results, but there is no guidance on when to call this versus detect_stack, get_profile, or search_checks, and no statement of prerequisites or expected use context.

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