list_all_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the output behavior (list names and descriptions grouped by server) and that filtering is optional. No hidden side effects or additional traits need disclosure for such a simple listing operation.

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 two short sentences: the first states the core function, the second explains the optional filter. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what is listed, how it is grouped, and the only parameter's purpose. There is no missing information that would prevent an agent from using 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?

Even though the schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), the description explains the 'server' parameter as an optional filter by server name. This compensates fully for the schema's lack of detail and adds clear meaning to the parameter.

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 clearly states a specific action ('List all tool names and descriptions') and the grouping key ('grouped by server'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_tool_schema (which retrieves a single tool's schema) and get_tool_count (which counts tools) by focusing on listing all tools in a grouped format.

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 is for obtaining an overview of available tools, optionally filtered by server. However, it does not explicitly compare with siblings like get_tool_schema or get_tool_count, leaving the choice of when to use this versus those tools to inference.

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