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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds that the result is unfiltered (every agent) and includes plan and status, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or behavior when the workspace has no agents.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste; the prerequisite is placed first and the output summary second. The parenthetical phrasing is slightly awkward but not verbose.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the description covers scope, returned fields, and the key prerequisite. Remaining gaps (ordering, empty-result behavior) are minor for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description's note that workspace_key comes from create_workspace largely repeats what the schema already says, adding no new syntax or format detail.

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?

"Every agent on the roster with plan and status" states the resource (agents) and the fields returned, and the tool name supplies the list verb. It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not distinguish itself from siblings like add_agent or import_roster_csv.

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 gives a prerequisite (needs workspace_key from create_workspace) but no guidance on when to choose this tool versus related roster tools such as add_agent or import_roster_csv. Usage is only inferable from the name and the word "roster."

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