list_servers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that access is policy-driven, implying read-only behavior, but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or data modification risks. The description is minimal in behavioral detail, leading to a mid-range score.

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: two sentences plus a numbered workflow that front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is efficiently structured for quick understanding.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, output schema exists), the description provides sufficient context: it explains the tool's role in a multi-step workflow, mentions policy-based access, and outlines the next steps. It is complete enough for an agent to use this tool correctly in the intended sequence.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (agent_id, include_metadata) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond naming and workflow context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the purpose: to discover downstream MCP servers available through the gateway. It uses specific verbs ('Discover') and resource ('MCP servers'), and the workflow clearly distinguishes this tool from its siblings (execute_tool, get_server_tools, get_gateway_status).

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 a clear workflow (1) list_servers, 2) get_server_tools, 3) execute_tool) implying when to use it as the first step. It also notes that access is determined by gateway policy rules, giving context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, slightly reducing the score from 5.

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