List available delegated agents

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the key safety behavior Photon, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful context by mentioning project-local agent discovery from .claude-opencode/agents and the role of cwd. It does not describe output format or failure behavior, but no contradiction exists and the annotation lowers the burden.

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 a single sentence that leads with the core action and resource, then adds the most important scoping detail about project-local agents. Every part 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?

This is a simple, read-only listing tool with no required parameters and no complex schema. The description plus the cwd parameter documentation is sufficient for an agent to know what the tool does and when to call it. The absence of an output schema is acceptable given the straightforward 'list' semantics.

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 only parameter, cwd, is already fully described in the schema with 'Workspace used to discover project-local agents (optional).' The description adds a small amount of context by linking cwd to the .claude-opencode/agents discovery mechanism, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('agents that delegate_task and create_session can use'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes this listing tool from the action-oriented siblings like delegate_task and create_session. The inclusion of project-local agents adds useful scope.

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 implies when this tool is useful: before delegating or creating a session, to discover available agent names. It names the consumer tools explicitly and clarifies the optional cwd behavior for project-local discovery, but it does not state formal exclusions or contrast directly with sibling listing tools.

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