list_generators

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-style enumeration operation and adds the useful detail about milestone generators, but it does not describe the output format, whether the list is exhaustive, or any other behavioral specifics. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action and resource appear first, and the milestone examples add useful context without unnecessary elaboration.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could be more explicit about the return format, but the provided information, combined with the sibling tool context, is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so parameter-level guidance is not needed. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately adds no irrelevant parameter information.

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') with a clear resource ('the LinkML generators supported by this MCP server'), and it names milestone examples ('shacl, owl, and doc'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately apparent and distinguishes it from siblings like describe_generator and run_generator.

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 implies the tool should be used when an agent needs to discover available LinkML generators before using describe_generator or run_generator. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the guidance implicit.

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