list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior, but it merely labels the resource a 'catalog'. It does not state that the operation is read-only, what it returns, whether it filters by kind, or whether agent/agent_name alter the result. The read-only nature is only implied by the tool name.

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 very short and free of fluff, with a compact colon structure. However, it is so terse that it becomes under-specified rather than deliberately concise; there is no verb, no usage context, and no clarification of behavior.

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?

Although an output schema exists so return values need not be described, the required 'kind' parameter is only loosely explained and the optional parameters are not addressed at all. With no annotations and a 0% schema description coverage, this description leaves too many practical calling details to inference.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain all parameters. 'Agents, models, or roles' gives some meaning to the required 'kind' parameter, but optional parameters 'agent' and 'agent_name' are left entirely unexplained. This only partially compensates for the schematic gap.

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 tool name 'list' combined with 'Orchestrator catalog: agents, models, or roles' makes the primary purpose reasonably clear: list catalog entries scoped to these categories. It lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate from siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings like get_orchestration_policy, route_task, or get_sync_context. The word 'catalog' hints at a read/listing use case, but no explicit conditions or exclusions are provided.

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