mcp_list

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read, so the description's job is limited. It usefully discloses the defaulting behavior and the layer partition, but says nothing about return shape, result size, or how verbose alters output. Some added context, 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?

A single compact sentence with the core purpose and the default-rationale front-loaded; no filler. Every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description should carry more of the return-value burden. It covers the layer concept and default adequately but omits what the listing returns and how verbose changes it, leaving a gap for an agent deciding how to consume results.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, but the description adds semantics beyond the schema by mapping management to mcp_*/discovery_* prefixes and business to protocol.name.op. The verbose parameter is only explained in the schema, not the description.

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 gives a specific verb (List) and resource (tools) plus the organizing concept (layer), and it defines the two layer buckets by their naming patterns. It does not name or differentiate against siblings like mcp_query_by_protocol or mcp_health, so sibling routing is left implicit.

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?

It states the default (layer=business) and even justifies it ('so agents are not flooded'), which is useful implied guidance on how to call it safely. However, it never says when to prefer this over a sibling query tool or when to use layer=all/management explicitly.

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