skflow_agents_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, which is a useful behavioral signal. However, it does not disclose whether the list is paginated, what fields a manifest contains, or whether authentication/authorization is required. Since it is a simple list, the implied behavior is somewhat sufficient, but additional details would improve transparency.

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 one short sentence that conveys the essential purpose and even enriches it with the list of manifest types. There is no unnecessary wording or repetition of the tool name.

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 zero-argument list tool, the description provides adequate context: it identifies what is being listed and the categories included. It does not describe the return payload format, but with no output schema, a slightly richer description of the output structure could make it fully complete. Overall, it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the baseline rule, a 0-parameter tool receives a 4 because there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The description does not need to add parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('declarative agent manifests') and enumerates the types of agents covered (spine / Saep / Sae / legacy expertos). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like skflow_agent_get (get a single agent) and skflow_packs_list (list packages).

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 implied usage is clear: use this tool to list agent manifests. However, there is no explicit comparison to alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use skflow_agent_get to fetch a specific agent' or 'this does not include packaged flows.' Guidance beyond the core purpose is absent.

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