list_ai_agents

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what is in the annotations, such as pagination behavior, default limit, or whether the list includes all agent definitions or only those accessible to the user.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so brief that it omits important details, but conciseness is about efficiency; the description is efficient but at the cost of completeness.

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 the complexity of sibling tools (many list tools) and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention default limit, ordering, pagination, or what fields are returned. The openWorldHint annotation suggests variability, but the description provides no guidance on expected output.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (limit and active). The description does not add any additional meaning or context to these parameters, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'List AI agent definitions' clearly states the verb and resource, but it does not differentiate from the numerous sibling list tools. It lacks specificity about the scope (e.g., all agents, active agents) and does not add value beyond the tool name.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Many list tools exist, but the description provides no context on prerequisites, filtering options, or when a different tool might be more appropriate.

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