list_detectors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states it does not run detection and returns metadata, implying a read-only operation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention its read-only nature, authentication needs, or side effects. For a listing tool, this is adequate but could be more transparent about required permissions or lack of destruction.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes all essential elements: purpose, usage context, return values, and distinction from sibling. Every sentence is informative with no wasted words.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists, no annotations), the description covers the purpose, return values, and distinguishes from the main sibling. It mentions filtering but not pagination or the required path parameter. Still, it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and use the tool correctly, especially with the presence of an output schema.

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 descriptions for parameters exist (path, limit, offset, name_filter) but the tool description does not explain them in detail beyond mentioning filtering by name. It adds value by linking the name_filter to the tool's purpose, but misses clarifying that path is required or pagination parameters exist. With schema descriptions covering the parameters, the baseline is 3, and the description provides modest added context.

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 the tool lists all available Slither security detectors with metadata, using specific verb 'Lists' and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'run_detectors' by explicitly stating it does not run detection. Also mentions filtering by name.

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 explicitly says when to use: 'to discover what security checks are available before running analysis, or to filter detectors by name'. It also gives a clear exclusion: 'Does not run detection; use run_detectors for that'. This provides good guidance, though it could mention other alternatives or when not to use.

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