list_agents

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. 'Browse' implicitly suggests a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, nor does it mention pagination behavior, return structure, or any rate limits. This leaves significant behavioral context unstated.

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 entire description is two short sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then succinctly list filtering and sorting options. There is no redundancy or filler; every phrase 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?

The description covers the core purpose and two of four parameters, but it omits pagination (limit/cursor) and does not describe the response shape. With no output schema and no annotations, this is only partially complete for a list tool with pagination parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'vertical' by mentioning filtering, and it partially clarifies 'sort' by enumerating the same values in the schema. However, 'limit' and 'cursor' are not explained, and the allowed vertical values are not provided, leaving gaps.

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 identifies the resource as the 'agent leaderboard' with the verb 'Browse', immediately distinguishing it from single-agent tools like get_agent. It also mentions filtering and sorting capabilities, which provides a specific scope.

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 phrase 'Browse the agent leaderboard' provides clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_agent for agent-specific details. Usage is implied rather than explicitly compared to sibling tools.

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