describe_toolset

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only introspection operation by saying it provides 'full schemas' and 'explains' commands, which is reasonably transparent. It does not mention error behavior, whether a running instance is required, or that it makes no modifications, but the read-only nature is strongly implied.

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 compact, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and essential special-case terminology in the second. Every sentence contributes useful information and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 simple introspection tool with two parameters and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential semantics including special name values and instance scoping. It does not describe the exact return structure, but 'full schemas' sufficiently conveys the expected output for this tool type. Missing explicit usage guidance vs siblings is the main gap.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds genuine value beyond the schema by explaining what 'bridge' and 'passthrough' mean for the name parameter, which the schema only lists as allowed values. Port semantics are already fully covered in the parameter description.

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 that the tool returns full schemas for all tools in a toolset on a single instance, which is a specific, recognizable purpose. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like list_toolsets by emphasizing schema detail and instance scoping. The special values 'bridge' and 'passthrough' add useful differentiation.

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 intended use is implied: if an agent needs full tool schemas, this is the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with list_toolsets, call_tool, or other siblings, nor state when not to use it. The explanation of 'bridge' and 'passthrough' gives usage context but not alternative-based selection guidance.

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