list_agents

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

The description discloses the API call (GET /v1/agents) and return structure (dict with total and agents[]), implying a read-only operation. However, without annotations, it does not explicitly state safety, rate limits, or authorization requirements, leaving some gaps.

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 moderately sized and well-organized into sections (用途, API, 回傳結構). It front-loads the purpose and avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a complete picture: purpose, API endpoint, and return format with field details. It covers all needed information for a simple list tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by detailing the return structure, which compensates for the lack of parameters to explain.

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 retrieves the store's agent account list, specifying its purpose for viewing agent configurations and understanding external account permissions. It distinguishes from sibling list_ tools by focusing on agents.

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 '用途' section explains when to use the tool: to view currently configured agents, suitable for confirming agent config or understanding external account permissions. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or compare to alternatives but provides clear context.

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