List OrangePro agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description confirms this by stating it returns a list of agents with specific fields, but does not add behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the primary use case and return fields.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields (agent_id, name, type, status, last run timestamp). It does not mention pagination or ordering, but for a simple discovery tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for its single optional parameter (tenant_id) with a description. The tool description does not add additional parameter guidance beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it lists all configured OrangePro agents for a tenant, and specifies the returned fields (agent_id, name, type, status, last run timestamp). It distinctly differentiates itself from sibling tools like orangepro_get_agent (single agent) and orangepro_list_agent_runs.

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 explicitly advises to use this tool first to discover available agents before getting details or triggering runs, which provides clear guidance on when to use it. It does not list when not to use it or alternatives, but the context from sibling names implies the workflow.

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