Enumerate the Bonis Concierge represented-agent roster. Returns slug, name, charter, bureau, archetype, liveness ('live' = verifiable POST endpoint and Knox event-chain integration today / 'charter' = description filed, integration in progress), and capability-page URL for each agent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| livenessFilter | No | Optional filter on liveness. Default: 'all'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose any behavioral details such as data volume, authentication needs, or rate limits. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.
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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. Every part is necessary, and there is no superfluous information.
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?
The tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the return fields and filter semantics adequately. It doesn't address pagination or limits, but the tool is likely returning a small roster, so it's acceptable for a list operation.
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 already provides a description for the single parameter (livenessFilter), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds value by explaining the meaning of the enum values ('live' and 'charter') in the context of agent status, which helps the agent select the appropriate filter.
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 the tool is used to 'Enumerate the Bonis Concierge represented-agent roster' with a specific verb and resource. It lists the exact fields returned (slug, name, charter, etc.), and the sibling tools are action-oriented (booking), so this read-only listing tool is well-differentiated.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. The description simply explains what it returns.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: listing agents, creating a booking request, and verifying a booking. There is no functional overlap.
All tool names follow the consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: list_represented_agents, request_booking, verify_booking.
With 3 tools, the set is minimal but well-scoped for a booking request server. Each tool is necessary and there are no redundant tools.
The set covers listing agents, requesting bookings, and verifying them, but lacks tools for updating, canceling, or listing bookings, which are notable gaps for a full booking lifecycle.