Fetch sub-agents for a parent or calling agent in EVC Mesh; optionally recurse up to 10 levels to return all descendants.
List sub-agents of an agent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | Parent agent ID. Defaults to the calling agent. | |
| recursive | No | Return all descendants (up to 10 levels deep). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on depth limiting, pagination, empty results, or authorization to view another agent's children.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is efficient. It is arguably too terse for the ambiguity with register_sub_agent, keeping it from a 5.
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, fully-schematized read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is minimally viable. However, with no output schema, it could have said what the listing returns (IDs, names, hierarchy shape) and is silent on it.
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%, with agent_id (defaults to calling agent) and recursive (up to 10 levels deep) fully documented in the schema. The description mentions neither, so baseline 3 applies – the schema does all the work.
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 (List) and resource (sub-agents of an agent), so the agent knows it is a read-listing operation. It does not differentiate itself from the closely related sibling register_sub_agent, so it falls 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?
No indication of when to use this versus alternatives such as register_sub_agent or get_team_directory, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.