list_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states what the tool does (lists tools with one-line descriptions) and implies the output is a collection of names and descriptions. For a read-only, side-effect-free meta-tool, no additional behavior needs disclosure. The description is transparent and complete within its scope.

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 short sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality with a specific verb and resource, and the second adds a practical use case. There is zero wasted wording, and the action is 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers everything an agent needs to know: what it does and when to use it. The returned list's format is adequately implied by the phrase 'with a one-line description.' No additional context is necessary.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed because the input schema is an empty object and there is nothing to explain.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('every tool this server offers'), and clarifies the output format ('with a one-line description'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from all sibling tools, which are content operations, by being the only meta-tool that enumerates the available 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?

The description provides a clear use case: 'Useful to plan multi-step content work.' This tells an agent when to call it. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but given that no sibling tool serves the same listing purpose, the guidance is sufficient and not misleading.

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