List available inputs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the result is initially empty and depends on connection state. It also clarifies the relationship to teleport_send_input, adding useful context.

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 a single sentence, but the wording is somewhat convoluted ('Inputs the server has declared... takes'). It could be more concise and front-loaded, e.g., 'Lists the input definitions for a connection.'

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema exists. The description covers the key contextual information (when data is available, relationship to send_input) without needing to explain return values, as output schema handles that.

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% and the connectionId parameter is well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 explains that the tool lists inputs declared by the server, with the IDs used by teleport_send_input. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings like teleport_send_input, though the phrasing could be more direct.

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 explicitly states that results are empty until the connection reaches CONNECTED and the server sends input definitions, giving clear timing guidance. It does not explicitly mention alternatives but implies this tool is for listing, not sending, inputs.

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