agents_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly conveys a read-only listing action and scopes to local CLI agents while specifying the capability categories reported. It does not describe return format or error behavior, but for a simple list tool this is reasonable.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and conveys the key detail about capabilities. No wasted words.

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 no-parameter read-only list, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (list of agents and their capabilities) without needing an output schema. It lacks formatting or error details, but they are not critical for such a simple 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings and correctly avoids adding unnecessary information about them.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('supported local CLI agents') and the specific capability categories (transport, resume, permission). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like agents_spawn and agents_status.

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 context by mentioning 'resume and permission capabilities', which suggests it should be used before agents_resume or agents_spawn, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. This is implied usage, not explicit guidance.

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