get_agents

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does contribute one genuinely useful behavioral fact: the call requires the `users:manage` permission. However it says nothing about pagination, result volume, ordering, or what a returned agent contains, so the behavioral picture remains thin for a list endpoint.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but a large share of the text is scaffolding rather than meaning: the title restatement and the "Tags: Agents" line add no actionable information. The permission line is the only sentence that 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?

For a read/list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the shape and scope of what comes back and how it differs from the compact and single-agent variants. It provides neither, leaving the agent to guess at return format and sibling selection.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; per the baseline for a parameterless tool this scores at the top of the normal range. The open additionalProperties schema suggests optional query parameters may exist but are undocumented anywhere.

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?

"Get Agents" essentially restates the tool name, and the only additional content is the raw endpoint path GET /api/v1/agents. It conveys that agents are listed, but nothing distinguishes this from siblings like get_agents_compact or get_agent, so the agent cannot tell which one to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion, and no mention of when get_agents_compact or get_agent would be preferable. The only prerequisite-like content is the permission requirement, which is not framed as a selection criterion.

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