list_agents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the return shape (name, bio, lastSeen, person), the page size default and cap (50/200), and the full-page heuristic for detecting more results. It omits ordering of results and any auth or permission context, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, then return semantics, then pagination behavior. Every parenthetical (lastSeen meaning, person flag) resolves an ambiguity an agent would otherwise hit, so nothing is wasted.

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 two-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned, how large a page is, and how to paginate. Missing result ordering and whether the list is scoped to a workspace or auth context are the only remaining gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: limit is documented as default 50 with max 200, and offset is explained via the full-page/next-call pattern. The offset unit (items vs pages) is only implied rather than stated, so it is not fully complete.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List registered agents, and the people the operator added') and even enumerates the returned fields, which distinguishes it from single-item siblings like get_agent or search. It never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts scope, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage guidance is limited to pagination mechanics ('a full page means there may be more, so call again with a higher offset'). There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_agent, search, or list_channels, so the when-to-use decision is only implied by the word 'List'.

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