List agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds context the annotations cannot express: the caller must hold the read OAuth scope, and the underlying API terminology differs from the tool naming. Those two facts materially affect whether a call succeeds.

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?

Twelve words across two fragments, front-loaded with the resource before the scope prerequisite. Every clause carries information. It is perhaps too terse to be maximally useful, but there is no filler to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. The description supplies the remaining critical agent-facing facts (read scope requirement, agent/strategy terminology). Minor gaps remain around whether the roster is paginated or filtered, but nothing essential is missing.

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 takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter behavior is misdescribed or left ambiguous.

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 the resource concretely ('The agent roster') and resolves a real naming ambiguity by noting the API calls agents 'strategies', which lets an agent map the tool onto what it will see in responses. The listing verb is carried by the tool name rather than the description, and there is no explicit differentiation from agents_save/agents_wake, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Needs the read scope' gives a clear prerequisite for invoking the tool, which is useful operational guidance. However, it says nothing about when to prefer this over siblings like agents_save or agents_wake, nor about any conditions that would make the call inappropriate. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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