agent_studio_get_agents_deprecated

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

The description adds nothing beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. However, there is no disclosure about pagination, response structure, or any side effects (though none expected). The description is too thin to add value.

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, which could be seen as concise, but it is under-specified to the point of being a placeholder. It lacks structure for presenting essential information like usage or parameter details. The 'Deprecated' note is stuck in parentheses without context.

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 operation, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the returned data looks like (no output schema), does not mention pagination despite having limit/offset parameters, and does not provide any context about the 'source' parameter. The description is inadequate for an agent to call this tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 description does not mention any parameters. The input schema only documents 'locationId' with a default note, and the other three parameters (limit, offset, source) are completely undocumented in either schema or description. Given low schema coverage (25%), the description should compensate but does not provide any parameter context whatsoever.

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 action ('List') and resource ('Agents'), which is clear. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and does not differentiate from the non-deprecated sibling 'agent_studio_get_agents'. Adding a note about deprecation is minimal and does not explain what kind of agents or any specifics beyond a generic list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer the alternative (e.g., agent_studio_get_agents). The 'Deprecated' marker is not actionable; it does not direct users to a replacement or explain why this version is deprecated. Zero usage context is provided.

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