sparda_list_disabled_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately declares it as a read-only listing operation with no side effects, but lacks details on authentication requirements or rate limits. The behavior is clear and consistent.

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 sentence with no extra words. It conveys the tool's purpose and scope efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what to expect (list of disabled tools and enablement info). A slight improvement would be specifying the output format, but it's sufficient for a simple list tool.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context by explaining the tool returns a list of disabled write tools and enablement instructions, which fully compensates for the lack of parameters.

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 it lists write tools disabled by SPARDA write-safety and how to enable them. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools like sparda_info or sparda_confirm which have different purposes.

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 usage for checking disabled tools but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor provide when-not-to-use guidance. It assumes the agent knows when write-safety is relevant.

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