available_methods

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'returns a list', and there is no mention of output size, runtime, or whether any state changes occur. It does not contradict the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, and it is appropriately sized for a simple registry-listing tool.

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 output schema covers return values and the annotations cover safety, so the simple core purpose is addressed. However, the six-parameter input schema includes data_path, data_sample_n, and result_id, which are not connected to the act of listing registered method names, leaving an agent unsure whether data-related arguments affect the returned list.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all six parameters in detail. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate even though the description does not compensate further.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a precise resource ('list of all registered decomposition method names'). 'Decomposition' narrows the resource and differentiates it from the broad field of sibling tools, so an agent can understand the tool's role without opening the schema.

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 the go-to for discovering available decomposition methods, but it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention that it should be called before selecting a method, nor how it relates to sibling tools like 'decompose' or 'methods_appendix'.

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