list_tools

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 usefully discloses the page_size cap of 100 and the cursor-based paging contract, but says nothing about return shape, default result ordering, or whether omitting all filters returns everything.

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?

Two compact sentences, filter surface listed first and the pagination constraint second. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema titles.

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?

Six optional parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema make the description the only source of meaning. Filters and pagination are covered, but parameter value semantics and default full-corpus behavior remain unspecified.

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 schema provides only bare titles, so the description must compensate. It maps four of the six parameters to filter concepts but gives no value formats (e.g. valid severity strings or library identifiers) and never explains what cursor accepts.

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 ('List inventoried agent tools') that clearly separates it from the sibling get_tool and from list_agents/list_mcp_servers by naming the inventory subject. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the list-vs-get distinction is inferable.

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?

Supplies filter names and tells the agent to page with the returned cursor, which implies the intended usage pattern. There is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance, e.g. when to use get_tool instead or when filters are required.

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