list_agents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'Capped at `limit` records' behavior, which is useful, and the word 'List' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly mention side effects, authentication, or rate limits, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 concise sentences. The first states purpose and output fields, the second explains the cap. Every word earns its place—no fluff or repetition.

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 simple listing tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it lists, the fields returned, and the cap. It doesn't mention pagination beyond the cap, but the output schema likely covers response structure, so the description is nearly 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 schema only defines 'limit' as an integer with a default, but the description adds meaning by stating 'Capped at `limit` records', explaining the parameter's purpose. This compensates well for the 0% schema description coverage.

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's function: 'List Nessus Agents linked to the tenant' with a specific verb and resource. It also enumerates the returned data (status, platform, timestamps), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_assets or list_scans.

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 implies usage context ('List Nessus Agents') but does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it. Since the name and wording strongly indicate it's for agent listing, usage is inferred rather than clearly guided.

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