List Registered Agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the fact that the source is a local registry file; it says nothing about result shape, ordering, or pagination, so it clears the lowered bar but adds little.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no filler. It is as short as it can be while still naming the data source.

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-required-param read tool whose annotations carry the safety profile and whose single parameter is fully described by the schema, the definition is minimally sufficient. It omits any differentiation from the numerous sibling list tools and any hint of what an agent record contains, which leaves a gap in a crowded tool surface.

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 coverage is 100%, so the status_filter parameter and its active/pending/retired values are already documented. The description never mentions filtering, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (registered agents) plus the backing source file (agora/agents.json), which anchors what 'agent' means here. It does not differentiate from adjacent list-style siblings such as list_profiles or list_issuance_records, so it stops at 4.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. In a sibling set this dense with other list/registry tools, the agent must infer from the name alone that this is the agents-registry reader.

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