list_agents

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

With no annotations provided, the description appropriately carries disclosure: it declares it returns a list of agent panes with agent kind and status, enumerates the status values, and explains how agents are addressed. It does not describe the exact output shape, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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 compact and well-structured, leading with the main purpose and then delivering status enumeration and addressing details. Every sentence adds useful information with no unnecessary filler.

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, the description covers the essential context: what is listed, what fields are returned, what status values may appear, and how agents can be identified. The output schema covers the return structure, so the definition is sufficient for an agent to select and use it correctly.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter-level compensation is necessary. The description usefully adds the addressing convention for agents (pane ID or agent name), which informs how results are referenced.

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 specifies the verb ('List') and the exact resource subset: panes running a detected coding agent. It also states the included detail fields (agent kind and status), fully distinguishing this from sibling tools like list_panes or list_tabs.

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 clear context about what the tool returns and the status values, so an agent knows the basic use case. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or explain when to use get_agent versus list_agents versus list_panes, leaving some routing to inference.

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