Get Called Tools

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

The description doesn't add behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, but annotations are comprehensive (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). Since annotations cover key behavioral traits, the description doesn't need to compensate, and there's no contradiction with 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 0 parameters, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete enough for its purpose. It could be slightly improved by clarifying what 'called tools' means, but the structured data compensates well.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score for this scenario.

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 'Get the list of called tools' clearly states the action (get) and resource (called tools), but it's somewhat vague about what 'called tools' means in this context. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_time' or 'get_weather' beyond the resource 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'tool_that_access_request' that might serve similar purposes.

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