list_agents

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

Without annotations, the description covers key behaviors: it indicates a GET request (read-only), pagination parameters (limit, cursor), and filtering options (pr_url, include_archived). However, it does not explicitly state it's a safe read operation or address authentication requirements.

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 extremely concise: a single-line summary followed by a clean bullet-style breakdown of parameters. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 output schema exists (defining return values), the description adequately covers pagination, filtering, and defaults. It could have mentioned rate limits or error handling, but it sufficiently enables an agent to use 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning: limit (page size, range, default), cursor (pagination token), pr_url (optional filter), include_archived (default true). This adds critical context beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 'List Cloud Agents for the authenticated user' with the HTTP path, specifying the verb (list), resource (Cloud Agents), and scope (authenticated user). It distinguishes from siblings like get_agent (single agent) and list_team_members (different entity).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or which scenarios favor other tools like get_agent or list_agent_runs.

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