list_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing the return structure (dictionary with success, tools, metadata), error conditions (returns error dict if not connected or retrieval fails), and what information is included (full input schemas). It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or performance characteristics, but covers the essential behavioral aspects.

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 perfectly structured: a clear purpose statement, followed by what it retrieves, then the return format with bullet points, and finally error conditions. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundant information, and it's front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

Given this is a read-only discovery tool with 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description provides complete context. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and error conditions - exactly what's needed for an agent to understand and use this tool effectively.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline would be 3. However, the description explicitly states 'no parameters required' by implication and clarifies this is a discovery/list operation without input filters, which adds meaningful context beyond 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 clearly states the specific action ('List all tools') and resource ('available on the connected MCP server'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_prompts or list_resources. It explicitly mentions retrieving comprehensive information including full input schemas, which sets it apart from other listing 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 clear context about when to use this tool - to discover available tools on a connected server. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, though the context implies it's for tool discovery rather than other server operations.

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