list_agents

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

No annotations provided. The description implies a read-only operation but does not disclose behavioral details such as pagination, result limits, ordering, or whether deleted agents are included (sibling list_deleted_agents suggests they are not). The description does not compensate for the missing 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?

A single sentence that is direct and to the point. Every word provides useful information with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description includes key fields but lacks information about result ordering, pagination, or the scope (e.g., tenant-wide, only active). Given the simplicity, it is adequate but could be more explicit about ordering and exclusion of deleted agents.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by listing the specific fields returned (id, name, status, version), which helps the agent understand the output beyond the empty schema.

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 the verb 'List', the resource 'agents', the scope 'in your Axonity tenant', and specifies the fields returned (id, name, status, version). It distinguishes from sibling listing tools like list_workflows and list_agent_versions.

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 indicates listing all agents but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_agent (for details on a single agent) or list_agent_versions (for version history). No mention of filtering, ordering, or scope limitations.

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