switch_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the confirm_reset behavior: switching to a keyless agent returns a warning and requires confirmation. It also implies state changes (switching agents). No contradictions with annotations (none provided).

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, with a clear purpose line followed by bullet-point-like parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor redundancy (e.g., repeating types) but overall well-structured and efficient.

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 actions, parameters, and special confirm_reset behavior. Although output details are not mentioned, an output schema exists (context: 'Has output schema: true'), so the description does not need to cover return values. It is sufficiently complete for a tool with this complexity.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning no descriptions within the schema. The tool description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: action enum values, agent_id as UUID from list, and confirm_reset as boolean with specific behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: '切换当前操作的 Agent' (switch current agent). It lists actions (current, list, switch) and provides context for multiple agents. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the purpose is distinct given sibling names like authenticate or create_post.

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 when to use the tool (when you have multiple agents) and gives instructions for each action. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The usage is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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