List Agents

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world hints. The description adds specific behavioral details: pagination, ranking by 3-axis engine, and a labeled selfDeclared slot. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no superfluous content. Front-loaded with key info: paginated, filterable, ranking. Every sentence adds value.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers filtering, pagination, ranking, and a key field (selfDeclared). For a list tool with 10 params (0 required), this is nearly complete.

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 description coverage is only 40%, and the description does not explain individual parameters beyond listing their names. It adds minimal parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, but lists the filter keys as context.

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 it is a paginated, filterable listing of registered agents, ranked by a 3-axis engine. This explicitly defines the verb (list), resource (agents), and scope (filtered/paginated), and differentiates it from sibling tools like find_agent or rank_agent.

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 lists available filters but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_agent or resolve_agent. It implies usage for listing/filtering but lacks use-or-not-use context.

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