efm_list_agents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a read-style listing operation and what data it returns, including the heartbeat-derived online/offline semantics. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or failure behavior, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and output fields, followed by precise parameter usage. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

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?

The operation is simple, has one optional parameter, and the description covers purpose, output meaning, and filter semantics. It could mention that valid agent_class values come from efm_list_agent_classes, but that is not essential for basic invocation.

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 schema only provides a field name and type, but the description explains the parameter's exact effect: passing agent_class filters to one class, omitting it returns every agent. This fully compensates for the low schema coverage and leaves no ambiguity about how to use the parameter.

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 ('List'), names the resource ('enrolled MiNiFi agents'), and states exactly what is returned (last-heartbeat timestamp, status/firstSeen/lastSeen). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like efm_get_agent or efm_list_flows.

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?

It explains when to use the tool ('primary online/offline signal') and gives explicit parameter guidance: pass agent_class to filter, omit it for all agents. It does not explicitly name alternatives for single-agent lookup, but the 'list' framing is clear enough.

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