agent_studio_get_agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination behavior, default scoping, or what the response contains. For a list operation, this is a significant omission since the schema does not describe the return format either.

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 extremely short (two words), which is not conciseness but under-specification. There is no structure or front-loading of key information. A minimal viable description would at least mention the primary purpose and any distinguishing features, which this lacks.

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?

With 5 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and a list operation that likely returns a paginated result, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the response structure, pagination, or how filters like isPublished and source work. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without external knowledge. This is a list tool where completeness is critical.

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 only 40% (locationId and isPublished have descriptions, but limit and offset do not). The description itself adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. It does not explain any of the parameters, so the agent gets no help beyond the schema's limited annotations. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to do so.

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 states the verb 'List' and the resource 'Agents', which clearly indicates a read operation to retrieve a collection of agents. It is distinct from sibling tools like agent_studio_get_agent_by_id, which targets a single agent. However, it lacks any mention of filtering or scope, so it does not fully differentiate from other list-like tools in the same domain.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither says 'use this when you need all agents' nor mentions that agent_studio_get_agent_by_id is for a specific agent. There is no exclusion or comparison to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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