list_agents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'lists' agents, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, describe pagination behavior (despite 'all' being potentially misleading given page/per_page parameters), or mention response format. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the literal action.

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 a single sentence, directly front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no redundant wording, filler, or repetition of schema details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 simple list tool with two optional parameters, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It does not mention that results are paginated, what the response looks like, or how this tool relates to sibling tools explicitly. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse to be considered fully complete for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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%, with both page and per_page parameters already described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning to these parameters, so it does not go beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameters adequately.

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 a specific resource ('voice AI agents in your Movoice AI account'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also differentiates from sibling tools: get_agent handles a single agent and list_calls handles a different resource, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool returns.

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: use this tool when you need to list all agents. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over get_agent, create_agent, or list_calls, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is entirely inferred from the verb and resource, not stated directly.

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