List agents

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations by explaining that results are cursor-paginated and that `next_cursor` from a previous response is passed as `starting_after`.

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 front-loaded: purpose first, pagination behavior second, required scope last. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple read-only listing tool with all optional parameters and no required inputs, the description covers purpose, pagination, and authentication requirements. It omits a detailed return-shape description, but that is not critical when the output schema is absent and the tool's behavior is straightforward.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds meaningful guidance by explicitly connecting `next_cursor` to `starting_after`, which clarifies the pagination flow beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the voice agents on this account.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling agent tools like get_agent, create_agent, update_agent, and delete_agent by indicating collection-level enumeration.

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 gives clear operational context: it explains cursor-based pagination and the required `agents:read` scope. It does not explicitly enumerate when to choose this tool over alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a list operation on the account's agents.

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