list_agents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what this operation does. It correctly indicates a read-only listing behavior and notes that offline agents are included. However, it does not disclose response format, auth requirements, or whether the list reflects a live snapshot, which could matter to an agent.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the target, and the key inclusion detail. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or 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 zero-parameter, low-complexity tool, this description is largely sufficient for an agent to understand what it will get. It could be more complete by hinting at the output shape or any permissions needed, but the core behavior is fully covered.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per calibration, zero-parameter tools get a baseline of 4. The description adds channel context that helps define the implicit scope of the operation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List every agent that has joined this channel.' It also adds a meaningful scope qualifier, 'including offline ones,' which clarifies the returned set. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_message or create_thread, which focus on communication actions.

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 clearly conveys that the tool is for enumerating channel members, and the 'including offline ones' detail sets expectations about the result set. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but no sibling tool does the same job, so the context is reasonably clear.

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