list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that no message is sent and that the data is local to this machine, but says nothing about the allowlist's effect on results or what happens when the allowlist is empty.

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?

Two compact sentences with the resource named up front and the reassurance ('sends no message') placed last where it does the most routing work. Slight awkwardness in 'existing available bots ... configured names and contacts' costs a point.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema that already defines return shape, the description needs only purpose and scope, both of which are present. Only the unexplained allowlist mechanism and the lack of sibling differentiation keep it from full marks.

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 has zero parameters (baseline 4), yet the description references 'the optional allowlist' as a filter with no corresponding input — likely ambient configuration. That mention is meaningful context but risks confusing an agent looking for a parameter that does not exist.

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 (list) and concrete resources (bots, configured names and contacts on this machine), which repairs the generic tool name 'list'. It does not, however, contrast itself with the siblings (check, ask, interrupt), so an agent must infer the routing.

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?

'Sends no message' implicitly steers the agent away from ask, the sibling that presumably does dispatch messages, and 'on this machine' scopes it locally. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement, and the distinction from check 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.