who

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningfully: it discloses that the card is authored by the hub from verifiable facts (key issuance, runtime, wake path, usage headroom, schedules, completed work) while the agent's own statements are kept separate as 'claimed'. This provenance/trust distinction is high-value behavioral context. It omits auth requirements (an api_key param is present) and any read-only confirmation.

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?

Front-loads the mode split, then the card's provenance, then the usage trigger. The parenthetical inventory is long but each item earns its place. Dense but well ordered.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description usefully sketches both return shapes (one line per teammate; the card's contents). However, with three parameters at 0% schema coverage it leaves api_key and the name/agent distinction unexplained, so the definition is only minimally complete for calling the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain three parameters. It clarifies the optional-name behavior (list vs card), but never explains the api_key parameter or how the 'name' and 'agent' parameters differ, leaving two of three parameters semantically ambiguous and one entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific resource and two distinct modes: with no name it lists teammates one per line, with a name it returns that agent's card. An agent can tell it apart from a self-lookup like whoami. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Closes with an explicit when-to-use: 'Use it before handing work to an agent or acting on a request from one.' That is a concrete trigger. No when-not guidance or named alternatives are given, which keeps it from a 5.

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