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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's only behavioral addition is a one-line sketch of the return payload, which overlaps with the existing output schema and omits anything about ordering, empty-state behavior, or counts.

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, both front-loaded with actionable content: the usage trigger first, the return shape second. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 read-only list tool with a full output schema and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger conditions, and output shape. There is no meaningful gap an agent would need filled before invoking it.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and no risk of misuse at the argument level. Baseline 4 for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('list... Xenition agents') and immediately defines the resource parenthetically as 'named AI workers', which disambiguates it from other 'agent'-adjacent siblings like run_agent or check_agent_run. An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the schema.

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?

Gives two explicit triggering conditions: when the user asks what agents they have, and as a prerequisite step before run_agent to pick the right one. It names the sibling it pairs with, so the routing decision is fully specified.

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