List project Agents

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint true, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying it returns status and summary (not full Limits or run traces), which is helpful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, completely front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds distinct value (scope, limitations). No waste.

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 readable annotations, a single simple parameter, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, scope, and constraints. An explicit note about the return structure of 'status and summary' would push it to 5, but it is already 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the project_id parameter with format and pattern. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 clearly states it lists 'built-in Agents assigned to one readable project' with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Agents'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_artifacts or get_agent by scoping to the authorizing account's agents per project.

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 usage for exploring agent status and summary within a project, and tells what NOT to expect (full Limits or run traces), providing some when-not guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., get_agent for details of a specific agent), but the context is adequate for an agent.

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