list_org_agents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns all agents including unverified ones and explains authentication requirements (X-API-KEY header vs. AIDRESS_API_KEY env var). While it doesn't mention pagination or error behavior, the read-only nature is evident from the verb 'list,' and the extra context adds value beyond mere naming.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose statement. The second sentence provides necessary setup instructions, and the third clarifies return scope. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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), the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, authentication method, scope, and the nuance of including unverified agents. This is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without additional assumptions.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter details since there are none. It doesn't contradict or duplicate any schema information.

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 begins with a specific action ('List') and resource ('agents registered under your org API key'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_agent (single agent) and list_registry (likely different scope). It further clarifies the scope with 'all agents belonging to your organisation, including unverified ones.'

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 for when to use this tool—when you need to list all org agents—and includes specific authentication instructions for both remote and local setups. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks the 'explicit when/when-not' of a 5.

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