slide_list_agents

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does disclose a non-obvious trait: the endpoint deliberately omits the agent-encryption passphrase even when one exists. This is exactly the kind of behavioral caveat that could cause incorrect assumptions. It does not describe response structure or error behavior, but for a read-only list operation the passphrase guarantee is the most important behavioral point.

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 earns its place in two sentences: the first defines the resource and enumerates filters, and the second flags the critical passphrase limitation with an alternative pointer. There is no filler or repetition of schema text, and the most important caveat is placed at the end without burying the action.

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 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it explains the domain concept, lists the main filter categories, and warns about the passphrase omission. It does not specify the response shape or pagination behavior, which would be helpful since there is no output schema, but the absence is not critical for a simple list endpoint with fully documented parameters.

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 input schema already describes all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful conceptual mapping by saying agents are filterable by device, client, type, and pairing date, which aligns with device_id, client_id, agent_type, and paired_after/paired_before. It does not add format or boundary details beyond what the schema already states, so no higher score is warranted.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List agents' and immediately defines what agents are in this domain (protected systems paired to a Slide device). It also names the available filtering dimensions, which are specific enough to distinguish this from any other list tool. The explicit 'see slide_get_agent' pointer further separates it from the single-agent retrieval sibling.

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 a clear when-not condition: it 'never returns the agent-encryption passphrase' and directs the agent to slide_get_agent instead. This is valuable routing guidance because an agent might otherwise assume a list endpoint would include all agent details. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with other list-style siblings, but for a get-vs-list relationship the guidance is sufficient.

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