List Tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It clearly states that the return value includes success status, the list of tools, metadata, and it explicitly mentions an error dict if not connected or if retrieval fails. This gives a good picture of expected behavior.

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 concise and well-structured, stating the core purpose first, then the return information and error behavior. It contains no unnecessary filler or redundant wording.

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?

The description provides everything an agent needs to understand what the tool does, what it returns, and how it behaves on failure. Given that there are no parameters and no annotations, this is complete for practical usage.

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 no parameters, and the input schema is an empty object with no required fields. There are no parameter semantics to explain, so the description fully satisfies this dimension.

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: to list all tools available on the connected MCP server. It uses a specific verb ('list'), a clear resource ('tools'), and a scope ('connected server'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like call_tool, list_resources, and list_prompts.

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 explains that the tool returns all available tools with input schemas to enable accurate invocation, making its use case clear. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but the 'all tools available' scope is sufficient to guide an agent when to use it.

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