list_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON array/string), the per-tool fields (name, description, parameters), and the key behavioral trait that no database connection is required. For a read-only listing tool, this is adequate transparency.

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?

Every sentence contributes: the primary purpose, the return type, the runtime discovery context, and a concrete example of the output. The format is front-loaded with the action and resource, and there is no filler.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides everything an agent needs: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. No obvious gaps remain.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior and return format instead.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List all available MCP tools of this server with their descriptions.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_schemas and list_objects, which list database entities rather than the server's own tool inventory.

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 states a clear context for use: 'Does NOT require a database connection — useful for discovering capabilities at runtime.' This implies when to choose it, especially when the database is unavailable. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, so 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.