list_scout_agents

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses that each agent has scoped capabilities, modes (quick/deep/oracle), and returns phased events + citations + a structured report. This adds behavioral context beyond a bare listing, though it doesn't mention any side effects or security requirements. For a parameterless list operation, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by usage guidance and agent characteristics. Every sentence is informative with no filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and why an agent would use it. It also connects to the broader context of multi-step goals, making it complete for its purpose.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description correctly doesn't attempt to explain parameters because there are none, so it adds no unnecessary details.

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 specifies the action ('List') and resource ('specialized HackScout scout agents'), adding the Nia-inspired qualifier. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_scout_agent or get_scout_run, which are related but have different purposes.

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?

It explicitly recommends these agents for multi-step goals instead of manually chaining atomic tools, providing clear usage context. However, it doesn't name alternative listing tools or explicitly state when not to use this list, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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