List project Agents

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns status and summary but not full Limits or run traces. This helps set expectations about the output scope, going beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 only two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and adds a clarifying scope/limitation line. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 list tool with one parameter, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is complete. It states what is returned (status and summary), what is not returned (limits, traces), and the project scoping, giving an agent enough to select and invoke 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 coverage is 100%, with the only parameter project_id having a clear description. The tool description does not add further parameter-level details, but none are needed given the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 lists the authorizing account's built-in Agents for a single readable project, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_project and list_projects by focusing on project-scoped agents, and from get_agent/run_project_agent by being a listing operation.

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 provides clear context: it lists agents assigned to one readable project and notes that it reveals status/summary rather than full Limits or run traces. This implies when to use it and what to expect, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for those deeper needs.

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