list_agents

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden and partially succeeds by specifying exactly what data fields are returned (status, platform, last run time). However, it omits critical operational details such as pagination behavior, caching policies, rate limits, or permission requirements necessary for safe invocation.

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 consists of a single efficient sentence that front-loads the action verb 'List' immediately followed by the resource and specific return field details. Every word serves to clarify scope and output, with zero redundancy or wasted clauses.

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 zero input parameters and no output schema, the description adequately compensates for missing structured metadata by explicitly declaring the three fields returned (status, platform, last run time). While additional behavioral context would improve completeness, the definition is sufficient for a straightforward listing tool.

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 input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4 according to evaluation rules. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameter documentation where none exist, maintaining correct alignment with the empty object schema.

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' with clear resource 'AI outreach agents' and enumerates returned fields (status, platform, last run time). While it effectively implies a read-only enumeration distinct from mutation siblings like create_agent or pause_agent, it does not explicitly differentiate from get_agent_stats which may overlap in functionality.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to select this tool versus alternatives like get_agent_stats, nor does it mention prerequisites, filtering limitations, or scope constraints. The agent must infer appropriate usage solely from the tool name and the word 'all'.

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