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

The annotations already declare read-only safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns IDs, names, and statuses, and guarantees that every workspace starts with at least one agent. It does not cover pagination or error behavior, but the schema handles page/perPage and the annotations cover the safe-read profile.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the list operation and immediately followed by actionable downstream context. No wasted words, and the key scoping detail ('workspace's AI agents') appears first.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields and the workspace guarantee, while the schema and annotations handle parameters and safety. Nothing critical for correct invocation 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%, so each parameter (page, status, perPage) is already documented in the input schema. The description only repeats the status enum already present in the schema and adds no further syntax, defaults, or filtering semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List the workspace's AI agents', specifies the returned fields (ids, names, status) and enumerates the status values. It also distinguishes the returned IDs as inputs for sibling tools get_agent, update_agent, test_agent, and deploy_agent, so an agent can separate this from single-agent retrieval tools.

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?

It provides clear context by explaining the result's downstream use: 'Use an agent's id with get_agent, update_agent, test_agent and deploy_agent.' This implies listing is the way to discover IDs when you do not already have one, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_agent or list_agent_channels.

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