cs_agent_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: the scoping to the caller's delegation subtree, support for filtering and cursor pagination, and the explicit limitation that sibling or ancestor subtrees are not accessible.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value. It is concise without sacrificing necessary context.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, usage context, scoping limitation, and key capabilities (filtering, pagination). With no output schema, it does not describe return values, but this is acceptable for a list tool. Some additional details about combining filters could be useful, but overall it is complete enough for effective selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description only generically mentions 'filtering and cursor pagination' without adding specific details about individual parameters, so it does not enhance the schema's semantics.

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 'Inspect', the resource 'managed agents', and the specific scope 'caller's delegation subtree'. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it cannot reveal sibling or ancestor subtrees, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit use cases are provided: 'before creating duplicates or when coordinating parallel work'. It also gives an exclusion: 'cannot reveal sibling or ancestor subtrees'. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, relying on the sibling list for that.

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