glm_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation is a read-only listing ('List'), the scope ('every subagent this server owns'), and the included data fields. This is sufficient for a non-mutating, zero-parameter tool, though it doesn't explicitly state 'does not modify subagents'.

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 sentence with no redundant words. The verb and object come first, and the output fields are listed compactly. Every element earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool, the description is complete: it states the scope, the returned data, and the ownership boundary. The presence of an output schema means return structure is already specified, and siblings provide workflow context.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity and the schema needs no embellishment. Baseline 4 applies: the description adds meaningful context about what the returned list will contain, even though no parameters exist to document.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('every subagent this server owns'), and the returned attributes (state, cost, run history). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all action verbs (delegate, await, continue, cancel, transcript) rather than listing operations.

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 makes the usage context obvious: call this when you need an overview of all owned subagents and their state/cost/history. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling competes with listing, so the context is clear enough without explicit routing.

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