list_engines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool returns engine details and notes the 'enabled in the current profile' aspect, which is helpful. However, it does not mention whether authentication is required, if results are cached, or if there are any side effects (though listing is inherently read-only). The description provides adequate but not exhaustive transparency.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core action ('List available analysis engines...') and then specify the return details. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what the tool lists and the fields returned. It could be more complete by mentioning whether the list is filtered by the current profile or includes all engines system-wide, but the phrase 'whether it is enabled in the current profile' subtly implies all engines are listed with profile-specific status. Slight gap: no mention of required prerequisites like having a profile set.

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 has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none is needed. Baseline score of 3 applies as the description neither adds nor suffers from parameter gaps.

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 the specific verb 'list' with the resource 'analysis engines', and clarifies it returns name, enabled status, and capabilities. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_engine, scan_file, or list_false_positives, which have different purposes.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, given the tool takes no parameters and is a simple list, the usage context is implied (e.g., to view available engines before enabling or using one). No exclusion criteria or alternative tools are mentioned.

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