agent_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description needn't repeat it. The one piece of added behavioral context is the word 'recognized', which implies only detected/known agents appear rather than all processes, but that qualifier is left unexplained. No ordering or scoping behavior is disclosed.

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 the verb and resource first and the returned fields as a trailing enumeration. There is no filler and nothing an agent must read past to reach the point.

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?

With zero parameters, a full annotation set and an output schema, most of the burden is already carried by structured fields, so the description only needs to convey scope. The remaining gap is the undefined scope of 'recognized' — whether agents outside the current workspace or in other panes are included.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter semantics to document. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('recognized coding agents'), plus the attributes returned (kind, name, pane, cwd, status, terminal title). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like agent_get or agent_explain, so an agent must infer that this is the enumeration counterpart to those single-agent lookups.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'List' with no parameters signals an unfiltered enumeration, and the sibling set contains agent_get for single lookups. However, the description never says when to use this versus agent_get/agent_explain, nor whether the list spans all workspaces and panes or just the current one.

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