List Available Tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of signaling safety and side effects. 'Lists all tools' reasonably implies a read-only operation, but it does not clarify output format, whether category filtering changes the return shape, or any potential pagination/limitations.

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?

One extremely concise sentence states the tool's purpose with zero filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and scannable.

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, optional-parameter listing tool, this description is nearly complete. It explains the tool's scope, and the schema covers the parameter. It could mention that return data is a catalog of tool names/metadata, but 'lists all tools' is adequate in context.

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?

The schema fully documents the single `category` parameter with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema's existing 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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and clear resource ('all tools available on the MCP server'), which distinguishes this broad enumeration tool from sibling list-tools that focus on particular item types (e.g., list-tables, list-packages, list-functions).

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 use case is implied: call this when you need the full catalog of MCP server tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get-tool-help for specific tools or state when not to use the category filter.

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