List Available Agents

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'returns information', implying a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, performance characteristics, or whether the data is real-time.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details about the return format, potential errors, or availability. Competing completeness would benefit from stating what 'information' includes (e.g., names, descriptions).

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?

There are zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter-level info, and 'all available agents and their tools' provides sufficient semantics for the no-parameter 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('returns') and resource ('information about all available agents and their tools'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'health', 'main_agent', and 'run_agent' which are not listing operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or conditions for selecting this over siblings.

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