agentswitchboard

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States it returns 'full detail' and lists fields, but does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or guarantee of completeness. Adequate for a simple get but lacks specificity.

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?

Single sentence front-loads the action and lists key details. No wasted words, highly efficient.

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 retrieval tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input and output fields reasonably well. Could mention the return format but is sufficient.

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?

Only one parameter (slug) with schema description and an example. The description reinforces 'by slug'. With 100% schema coverage and no enums or nested objects, the description adds clear context without redundancy.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves full details for a specific agent by slug, and enumerates the included information (skills, auth, streaming/push support, tags, provider links). The purpose is distinct from sibling tools list_categories and search_agents.

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?

Implies use when needing full details for a known agent, and the slug parameter is explicitly required. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the sibling context makes the differentiation clear.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns all categories with live agent counts, implying no pagination or filtering, and indicates real-time counts. No side effects or auth needs are mentioned, but for a simple read tool, this is adequate.

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 is concise and front-loaded with the key purpose. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema) and sibling tools, the description is mostly complete. It could mention if categories are hierarchical or sorted, but it covers the essential purpose and cross-reference with search_agents.

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, so baseline score is 4. The description does not add parameter-specific information, but none is needed.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists 'All directory categories with live agent counts,' which is specific and distinct from sibling tools get_agent and search_agents. It also explains that slugs from this tool are valid inputs for search_agents, adding context.

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 mentions that slugs are valid inputs for search_agents, giving indirect guidance, but does not explicitly state when to use list_categories versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries burden. It mentions relevance-ranking and filtering, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or whether results are sorted. No contradictions, but minimal additional behavioral context.

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, each serving a clear purpose: first states the function and scope, second describes output and filters. No extraneous words.

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 description is somewhat complete for a search tool, but lacks details about the output structure (no output schema provided). Knowing what fields are returned (e.g., agent ID, name, description) would help an agent use results correctly.

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 75%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'Filter by category slug and/or access methods,' but this is already implied by the schema. It does not add new meaning beyond what's in the schema.

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 it searches a directory of agents and tools, returns ranked results, and allows filtering. It distinguishes from siblings 'get_agent' and 'list_categories' by indicating it's a search with filtering.

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 implies when to use: when searching the directory. It mentions filtering by category and access. However, it doesn't explicitly exclude use cases like when an agent ID is known (use get_agent) or when listing categories (use list_categories).

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