List agents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose concrete return content: lifecycle state, human-memorable name, timeout_seconds, concurrency cap, active count, and pending spawn count. It says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or how many results come back by default, which matters for a list tool with a cursor.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope; every sentence adds something. Slightly padded by the return-field enumeration, but no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so explaining returns is genuinely useful, and the description does that reasonably well. However, it leaves the entire filtering and pagination surface unexplained, which is a real gap for a five-parameter list tool.

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 0% and five parameters (limit, cursor, states, backend, updated_since) are completely undocumented in the schema. The description only gestures at state via "lifecycle state" and never mentions filtering by backend, timestamp, or how to page.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List agents tracked by this host") and names the distinguishing detail of including agents restored after a reconnect. An agent can tell this is a host-scoped enumeration rather than an event or result fetch, though it doesn't call out a specific sibling by name.

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?

"Refer to agents by name in later tool calls" gives downstream guidance, which implies this is a discovery step before spawn/send_message/get_agent_result. But it never states when to prefer this over list_agent_configs or get_agent_events, so the routing signal is only implied.

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