list_checks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it returns checks but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or pagination. The response format is described, but this is covered by the output schema, so it adds minimal value beyond structured data.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence. The response details are included but are necessary for clarity given the lack of annotations, and every sentence earns its place without waste.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, output schema provided), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what is returned, which the output schema covers, but misses behavioral context like safety or usage guidelines, making it minimally viable but not fully complete.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is high. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it doesn't introduce any confusion, so it meets expectations for a parameterless tool.

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 verb ('Return') and resource ('all allowlisted monitoring checks available to the MCP server'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_alerts' or 'run_all_checks', which might have overlapping domains, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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