list_agents_v0

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully adds the 'one round-trip' efficiency trait and flags the tool as legacy, but says nothing about read-only safety, auth/permission needs, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema shows.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the legacy/scope qualifier and the recommended use case each earn their place.

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 simple, no-annotation list tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the value proposition and hints at return fields (repo/branch/PR/summary), but with no output schema the return shape and cursor semantics remain partially unstated.

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% for both parameters (limit default 20, cursor), so the schema already documents them fully. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 identifies this as the 'Legacy v0 list' and names the payload it returns (repo/branch/PR/summary), which together with the tool name makes the resource clear and distinguishes it from the sibling list_agents. It stops short of an explicit verb+resource statement like 'lists agents', relying on the name to supply that.

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?

'Best for PR triage' provides an implied use case, and 'Legacy v0' hints that list_agents is the preferred alternative. However, it never states when to choose this over list_agents or when not to use it, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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