list_agent_tools

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already convey the non-mutating nature. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the output contents (name, description, parameters) and the runtime scope (api_config + db_config + MCP + core). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral detail about what the tool returns, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and scope, and the second efficiently lists output details. Every clause earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly stating that the tool returns the agent's resolved tools with name, description, and parameters. It covers the input (agent_id), the scope (resolved tools), and the output content. For a simple read-only listing tool, this is complete — an agent knows exactly what to expect and how to invoke it. No critical information is missing.

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% — the only parameter, agent_id, is already described as 'UUID do agente'. The description does not add any additional semantics beyond restating 'de um agente'. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra meaning to the parameter, so it stays at 3.

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 specific action: listing all resolved tools of an agent, and enumerates the composition (api_config, db_config, MCP tools, core tools). It differentiates from siblings like list_agents or get_agent by focusing on tool inventory rather than agent metadata. The phrase 'Mostra o que o agente efetivamente terá disponível em runtime' clarifies the scope and output, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 clear context: this tool is for listing an agent's resolved toolset at runtime. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over siblings like list_agents or get_agent, nor does it state any exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the use case, but without explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, it stops short of a 5.

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