list_terminals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: the data source (the registry), the concrete filesystem location scanned when include_discovered is set (%APPDATA%\MetaQuotes\Terminal), and a security-relevant disclosure that password values are excluded from results.

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?

Three short lines: the core operation first, the optional parameter behavior second, the data-exclusion note last. No filler, and the important scoping fact 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 read-only enumeration tool with one boolean flag, the description covers source, scope, and data exclusions. The only gap is the shape of a returned terminal entry (identifier, name, path, accounts), which matters because there is no output schema, though sibling tools likely reveal identifiers on use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the single parameter, and it does: it explains that include_discovered=true adds installs found on disk that are not yet registered, which fully defines both the default and the flagged behavior.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List terminals in the registry") and implicitly scopes it against mutating siblings like add_terminal and remove_terminal. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being routed.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool enumerates the registry, and the second sentence describes a specific condition (include_discovered=true) for widening scope. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over terminal_status or use_terminal, nor any prerequisite or follow-up guidance.

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