List TacticalRMM Agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about API key visibility scoping and the source endpoint /agents/, which is beyond the annotations. It does not detail pagination behavior, but the existing annotations and description provide adequate transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, then lists optional filters. There is no waste, and it avoids repeating schema details.

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 tool's relative simplicity and 100% schema coverage, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does. However, with no output schema, it would be slightly more complete to mention that the 'detail' flag changes the response from summaries to detailed records, but the schema already covers this, so the description is adequate.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists some filter names (client, site, monitoring_type, detail) but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as types, defaults, or the effect of 'detail' on response shape. The schema carries the heavy lifting, so no extra credit is warranted.

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 'List agents visible to the TacticalRMM API key from /agents/' with a specific resource (agents), a specific source endpoint, and optional filters (client, site, monitoring_type, detail). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_agent (singular) and other list tools by explicitly naming the resource and filtering options.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for listing agents, scoped by API key visibility, with optional filters. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the phrasing implies usage when you need a filtered list of agents, which is sufficient for a straightforward listing tool.

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