list_agents

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implicitly suggests a read-only operation, and the phrase 'live binary availability' indicates a real-time snapshot. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, nor does it disclose any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word conveys meaningful information without redundancy or filler. It is perfectly concise for a list operation.

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 tool with one optional parameter that is undocumented, the description leaves a critical gap. While the output schema (if rich) might explain return fields, the tool's purpose and parameter usage are not fully covered. The description does not explain how agent_name affects the output, nor does it mention any pagination or filtering behavior. The tool is simple enough that a richer description would easily make it complete, but this one does not.

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 one optional parameter, agent_name, but the description makes no mention of it. Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter is entirely undocumented. The description does not explain what agent_name is for, its possible values, or how it influences the results. This is a significant gap for a tool that only has one parameter.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('dispatch agents'), and adds specific attributes ('live binary availability and routing capabilities') that distinguish this from sibling tools like list_models or list_roles. It is concise and unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, nor does it reference any other tool. The agent is left to infer its use case from the name alone.

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