List Bot Instances

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive traits. The description adds meaningful context by stating the default appId filter and the dependency on having an invited agent, which explains why the list might be empty. This goes beyond the annotations.

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-loads the core purpose, and then provides filter and prerequisite details without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 simple list operation with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, filtering behavior, and a critical prerequisite. It omits details about return format or pagination, but given the annotations and simplicity, this is adequate.

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 only 33% (only agentIdOrAddress has a description). The description clarifies that appId defaults to the caller's app and that both appId and agentId are filters, adding some value. However, it does not elaborate on the relationship between agentId and agentIdOrAddress beyond what the schema already says, so the compensation is partial.

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 states a specific action ('List BotInstances') and resource, clearly distinguishing it from related tools like ethora-agents-list-v2 or ethora-bot-get-v2. It also mentions filters, but does not explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation, which keeps it just 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?

The description gives a clear prerequisite (an invited agent must exist) and explains the default appId behavior, which implies when the tool is useful. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like ethora-bot-instance-status or ethora-bot-get-v2, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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