List available agy agents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. The verb 'List' implies a non-destructive read and there are zero parameters, so risk is inherently low, but the description says nothing about whether the result is static, scoped, or cached, nor what the entries contain.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the downstream purpose attached rather than buried. Nothing is redundant.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description conveys both what is listed and why. It could have sketched the shape of a returned profile (name, description, capabilities), which is the one remaining gap.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds a useful cross-tool pointer by naming the `agent` parameter that these values feed, which is more than the empty schema conveys.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('agent profiles'), and it goes further by stating the profiles' purpose (values for the `agent` parameter). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_models, but the resource name makes the split inferable.

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 clause 'usable for the `agent` parameter of delegation tools' tells the agent exactly when this tool is relevant — before invoking a delegation tool that needs an agent value. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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