agentslist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'filters and options', hinting at configurability, but doesn't describe key traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior (implied by 'pn' parameter but not explained), or what the output looks like. For a listing tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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: 'List agents with filters and options'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function efficiently.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, output format, or usage nuances beyond a basic listing concept. For a tool with multiple filters and options, more context is needed to guide effective use, especially without annotations or output schema to fill in gaps.

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 the schema by mentioning 'filters and options', which aligns with parameters like 'location', 'search_type', and 'radius', but doesn't provide additional semantics or clarify interdependencies (e.g., the 'company_name' vs 'location' requirement is only in the schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'List agents with filters and options'. It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('agents'), and mentions the capability for filtering. However, it doesn't distinguish this from its sibling 'agentsdetail', which appears to be a detail view rather than a listing tool, so differentiation is implied but not explicit.

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 implies usage context through 'with filters and options', suggesting it's for retrieving multiple agents based on criteria. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'agentsdetail' or other property-related tools, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferred from the tool's name and description but not clearly guided.

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