list_agents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden alone; 'List' implies a read-only operation and 'currently spawned' implies active-only results rather than historical or terminated agents. Beyond that it says nothing about cost, ordering, or what identity fields come back, which is thin for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word ('currently', 'spawned', 'interactive') contributes narrowing information.

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?

The tool is simple and parameterless, but with no output schema the description should say what each list entry contains (agent id, name, status, session). As written an agent knows it gets 'agents' but not what it can do with the result.

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 disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The empty schema is self-consistent with a full-list tool.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (interactive agents) with a scoping qualifier, 'currently spawned', that separates it from list_jobs and list_sessions. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but 'interactive agents' is a meaningful discriminator.

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 explicit guidance on when to call this versus list_sessions or list_jobs, nor any stated preconditions. The purpose implies enumeration usage, but the choice among the several listing siblings is left entirely to inference.

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