List RIS clients

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context: it runs under the desktop session login, never prompts for credentials, and has no undo step. It also notes the tool surfaces selectedClientId when the active pool comes from the server. Not a full behavioral picture (no mention of failure modes when no pool is reachable), but well beyond the annotations.

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?

One dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose before the routing and auth notes, which is the right order. It is slightly overpacked with subordinate clauses, but every sentence carries a distinct fact rather than filler.

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 read tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies the remaining unknowns: permission scoping, auth model, the idempotent/no-undo behavior, and the relationship to the two sibling selection tools. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; per the rubric this is a baseline 4. The description does not waste space inventing parameter guidance, which is correct here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the clients of the Rillsoft Integration Server') and immediately scopes it to the logged-in user's readable resource pools, so it is distinguishable from sibling list tools like rillsoft_portfolio_ris_list or rillsoft_project_ris_list. An agent knows exactly what comes back before opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the downstream consumer ('the clientId is what rillsoft_resource_pool_ris_select takes') and names the alternative path for a different case ('A pool file is selected through rillsoft_resource_pool_file_select instead'). This is exactly the when-to-use / when-not-to-use routing an agent needs.

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