get_clients

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (Markdown string with flag value and client IDs) and explicitly states it does not modify bundle content, implying a read-only operation. It does not cover edge cases like errors or auth, but for a simple getter this is adequate and adds meaningful behavior context.

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: one sentence states the purpose, a second clarifies scope, and a return line specifies output. Every sentence earns its place, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with an output schema (the return type is described), the description is fully adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does, what it returns, and that it is side-effect-free. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 already covers everything trivially. The description adds no parameter details, but that is not a gap since there are none. The baseline of 4 applies because the description could have mentioned that no parameters are needed, but it is not necessary given the empty schema.

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 clear, specific purpose: listing AI clients configured at MCP startup, with the flag and environment variable named. It also clarifies it deals with template installation metadata and explicitly says it does not alter bundle content, distinguishing it from content-related tools. The verb 'Lista' (list) and resource 'klientów AI' make the action unmistakable.

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 implies usage context by noting it covers metadata and does not change bundle content, which hints at when to use it (for client configuration info). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, and no comparison to siblings is provided. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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