agent_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the "Read-only" sentence is largely redundant; the real added value is the disclosure of what each entry contains (stack, runtime, durability, port), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of saying whether results are ordered or paginated, but for a small project-scoped list that is minor.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it returns, safety, then routing to siblings, with the exclusion front-loaded ahead of the parameter note. The only wasted phrase is the annotation-redundant "Read-only".

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-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description covers return fields, safety, sibling routing, and the conditional path requirement. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema baseline already documents both parameters. The description still adds genuine meaning for projectPath by stating the condition under which it must be set, which the schema does not phrase as a rule; the `stack` filter is only implied via "with their stack".

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 AI agent resources", with the appType: 'agent' scope made explicit) plus the fields returned (stack, runtime, durability, port). An agent can distinguish it from resource_list and agent_sessions from the description alone.

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?

Explicitly names two alternatives and the condition that selects each: use `resource_list` for every resource type, `agent_sessions` to inspect one agent's sessions. It also gives the condition for the projectPath parameter (server not running from project root), covering the main invocation ambiguity.

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