get_my_agents

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

Without annotations, the description does disclose that agents are stored locally and that it fetches latest status from the server, implying a read operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, and it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or potential errors. Acceptable but could be more thorough.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences that deliver the main purpose first and additional context second. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the main functionality, data sources, and the fact that it fetches latest status. Given the simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. However, it does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., array) or whether the local storage is persistent, which would add clarity. Slightly above adequate.

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?

There are no parameters in the input schema, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The description appropriately describes the tool's behavior without referencing parameters, which is sufficient.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists saved agents with IDs, API keys, and status. The verb 'list' and resource 'saved agents' are specific. It also notes that agents are saved locally via create_agent, which provides context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_agent and get_agent_status by focusing on a list of all saved agents.

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 implies usage for retrieving a list of saved agents and their statuses, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_agent_status (which might fetch status for a single agent) or other list tools. No explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

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