teramind_list_agents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explicitly discloses that extended fields (salary_type, default_wage, ldap_attrs) are never requested, so only basic identity fields are ever returned. This prevents an agent from assuming richer data is available. It does not discuss rate limits or auth, but as a simple read-only list that is a minor gap.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose and disambiguation, downstream usage of Agent IDs, and a precise statement about omitted extended fields. 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does: id, name, email, avatar, online status, plus the explicit note that extended fields are never returned. It also covers how the output integrates with sibling tools. For a parameterless list operation, nothing essential is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the response contains and how IDs can be reused, but there are no parameter semantics to elaborate beyond the empty schema.

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 specific verb and resource ('List Teramind agents') and immediately disambiguates the term 'agent' as a monitored employee/user identity, not a software agent. It also enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling list tools.

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 gives clear practical context for when to use this tool: it produces Agent IDs required by teramind_get_agent and usable as filters on teramind_list_alerts. It does not explicitly name when not to use it versus sibling list tools, but the usage context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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