list_agents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it lists agents, but does not mention any potential side effects, permission requirements, pagination, ordering, or limits. Since this is a list operation, the agent might expect complete results, but there is no confirmation or caveat.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the core function and the second adding helpful context about agents. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is reasonably complete: it states what the tool does and defines agents. However, it lacks any mention of what information is returned for each agent (e.g., name, capabilities), which could be relevant for an agent deciding whether to use this tool. A bit more detail would improve completeness.

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 no parameters, so the input schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description does not add parameter information because none exist, so it is adequate.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'available agents', and distinguishes the tool's scope by specifying 'configured for your organization'. It also provides a brief definition of agents, which helps the agent understand what it is listing. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_models or list_datasets.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include show_agent, which likely retrieves details of a single agent, but no comparison or usage context is given. The agent is left to infer when to use list_agents versus other list or show tools.

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