list_generated_servers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It accurately indicates a read-only listing operation, which implies no side effects. However, it does not disclose behavior around the recursive default, how workspace_path is interpreted, or whether any filtering occurs.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is efficient and easy to parse, though it sacrifices useful context for brevity.

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 tool with two optional parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not clarify the recursive parameter, the meaning of default workspace_path, or the structure of the returned list. The presence of an output schema helps but does not compensate for the missing operational semantics.

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%, and the description does not explain either parameter. 'recursive' and 'workspace_path' are left entirely to the agent to infer from their names and defaults. The phrase 'in a workspace' loosely maps to workspace_path, but it is not a meaningful semantic explanation.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('generated mcpforge servers') with a clear scope ('in a workspace'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate, update, validate, plan, inspect, and doctor, which all indicate different actions.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you want to see generated servers in a workspace. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites such as what workspace_path should be.

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