list_agents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the authentication requirement (developer key) and the returned fields, which is useful. But it does not mention read-only semantics, pagination, rate limits, or error behavior, leaving some behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 two short sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the main action and results, and the second adds the essential auth prerequisite. Every word contributes value.

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?

Given the simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description explains the core purpose and return fields, but lacks clarity on response structure (e.g., array vs. single object), pagination, or any limits. It is adequate for a basic list tool but not fully 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema is empty and coverage is 100% vacuously. The description need not explain parameters; it correctly implies no input arguments are required, aside from the developer key which is an auth requirement, not a parameter.

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 clearly states the tool lists every agent owned by the developer account, includes specific fields (status, wallets, credit limits), and is distinct from the singular "get_agent" sibling. The verb "List" and scope "every agent" make the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when you need a full list of agents, and notes the prerequisite of a developer key. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_agent or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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