agentslist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by 'page' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a successful response. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 concise at just 6 words, front-loading the core purpose. Every word earns its place - 'List' (action), 'agents' (resource), 'with options and filters' (capabilities). No wasted words or redundant information.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (agent objects? summaries?), how results are structured, error conditions, or the relationship between filtering parameters. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description itself provides insufficient context for proper tool selection and invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond confirming filtering/options exist. It doesn't explain parameter relationships, default behaviors, or provide usage examples that would enhance understanding beyond the 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 action ('List') and resource ('agents'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'agentsdetail' or 'agentsget_listings', which would require more specific scope information to earn a 5.

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 like 'agentsdetail' (for individual agent details) or 'agentsget_listings' (for agent listings). There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusion criteria.

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