Share A Bot MCP A2A (agent2agent) Protocol

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool as 'Read-only' (safety profile), specifies the return format ('Plain-text list, one line per category'), and handles edge cases ('Empty-category result: "No categories yet."'). It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but provides sufficient context for a list operation.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, returns), uses bullet-like formatting for the return format, and every sentence adds value. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys all necessary information without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits (read-only, return format), and edge cases. No output schema exists, so the description appropriately explains the return values in detail.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description adds value by explicitly stating there are no parameters needed ('List all agent categories'), which reinforces the schema's empty properties. No parameter details are needed, so this is appropriate.

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 specific action ('List all agent categories with populated-count') and resource ('agent categories'), distinguishing it from siblings like find_agent or get_agent. It explicitly mentions the read-only nature, which helps differentiate from mutation tools like register_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 includes an explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section that provides concrete examples of user queries ('what kinds of agents are on Shareabot?') and guidance on when to use this tool ('before find_agent when you want to pick a category'). It clearly distinguishes this tool's purpose from its siblings.

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