list_subagents

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates safety, and the description adds useful context by mentioning reconciliation with live tmux pane state. This goes beyond the annotation, though it doesn't detail what reconciliation entails.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core function and key behavioral nuance without redundancy.

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 a simple parameter set, a read-only annotation, and an output schema, the description sufficiently captures the tool's intent. The term 'reconcile' is slightly ambiguous but doesn't critical hinder understanding for a list operation.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single 'session' parameter, so the description doesn't need to elaborate. It adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, justifying the baseline score.

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 clearly states the tool lists subagents and adds the distinctive 'reconcile them with live tmux pane state' behavior, making its purpose specific and differentiated from sibling tools like check_subagent or launch_subagent.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions or alternatives, leaving the user to infer usage context.

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