agents

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation, and the description discloses the exact output categories and stats. It does not mention staleness or permission requirements, but those are minor for a zero-parameter enumeration tool.

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 lengthy but dense and purposeful: it front-loads the core list action, then presents output fields and routing strategy. Some field enumeration overlaps with the output schema, but the added interpretation and usage guidance justify the length.

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 no-parameter listing tool with an output schema and a clear follow-up action (run), this description is complete. It tells the agent what it will receive, how to interpret the stats, and how to apply them when selecting an agent_id. Nothing essential is missing for correct 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to compensate for. The description correctly focuses on output semantics and usage rather than input semantics.

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 opens with 'List configured worker agents and their capabilities' — a specific verb and resource — and enumerates the exact stats returned. It also distinguishes itself from lifecycle siblings by explicitly positioning agents as the discovery step before run().

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 says explicitly to use this before run() to pick a valid agent_id, and gives a concrete routing heuristic: high-score agents for hard units, cheaper/lower-score agents for well-specified mechanical units. This is actionable guidance for when and how to use the tool.

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