List Agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that, and its claim of listing 'all' agents is potentially misleading given the paginated schema (default page_size=100), with no pagination behavior disclosed.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than dense with useful information.

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 read-only, two-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the minimal description is arguably adequate to call it correctly. Still, there is no output schema, so nothing confirms the return shape (array of agent objects, pagination metadata), leaving a modest gap.

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 page and page_size are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no format, range, or semantics beyond it. The baseline of 3 applies when 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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Mistral agents'), which cleanly separates it from mutation siblings like mistral_get_agent, mistral_update_agent and mistral_delete_agent. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with other list-style siblings (e.g. mistral_list_conversations, mistral_list_models), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as mistral_get_agent when a specific agent is already known. The agent must infer the retrieval context entirely from the tool name.

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