agent_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an exceptional job. It discloses the compact projection is a trimmed view not missing data, explains that offline agents are terminated processes that cannot be messaged or assigned work, reveals the payload-size failure history and the 96.4% offline-row statistic, and explicitly assures nothing is deleted. This is richly transparent about edge cases and consequences.

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 efficiently structured with a leading one-line purpose, then a compact-projection explanation, then offline-handling context. While dense and front-loaded, some sentences are long and packed with multiple clauses; the failure-history narrative, while valuable for transparency, adds verbosity. Still, every sentence earns its 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?

This is a complex tool with 6 parameters, an output schema, no annotations, and an unusual default behavior (count+digest for offline). The description thoroughly explains the compact vs all distinction, the offline folding logic, the termination implications, the payload-size failure rationale, and the include_offline escape hatch. For a tool of this complexity, the description is remarkably complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between include_offline and offline_preview (digest vs full rows) and clarifying what the compact projection omits. However, it doesn't add per-parameter syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List a team's members'. The description distinguishes compact vs full projections and explains offline member handling, which differentiates it from sibling tools like team_list, team_status, and team_briefing that operate at the team level rather than member level. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it competes with, so it loses the top score.

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 explains when to request offline history ('on request'), when to use fields='all' versus compact, and how include_offline interacts with the default count+digest behavior. It provides clear conditional context though it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives.

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