List agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds important behavioral context: the admin-token requirement and the resulting 403 error. It does not cover pagination or rate limits, but it meaningfully extends what the 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by returned fields, diagnostic usage, and auth constraint. Every element earns its place, especially because there is no output schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's enumeration of returned fields is essential and complete for an agent to understand the response. It also supplies the key auth prerequisite and diagnostic context needed 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the sole 'instance' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the configured instance name. The description adds no further syntax or semantics for that parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Starts with a specific verb, 'Lists', and a specific resource, 'the instance's build agents', then enumerates returned fields. This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like list_instances or get_queue_info without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a concrete diagnostic use case ('see whether agents are online when pipelines sit pending') and a hard prerequisite ('Requires an admin token; Woodpecker answers 403 otherwise'). It stops short of naming alternative sibling tools or stating when not to use it, so it is not a full 5.

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