memanto_list_agents

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only conveys that the result is unfiltered and server-scoped. It says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, whether deleted or archived agents appear, or whether results are paginated. The presence of an output schema relieves it of explaining the return shape, which keeps this at an adequate rather than poor level.

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?

One short sentence with the scope qualifier placed immediately after the verb-resource pair, so the key information is front-loaded. It is efficient but borders on thin for a tool with no annotations backing it up.

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 list tool with an output schema that documents return values, the description covers what is needed to select and invoke it. The remaining gap is behavioral nuance such as pagination or inclusion of inactive agents, which is minor at this complexity level.

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 is 4; there is no parameter meaning for the description to add or omit. The single sentence correctly avoids inventing filtering options that the empty schema does not support.

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 pairs the specific verb "List" with the resource "agents" and scopes it to "this MCP server knows about," which separates it from a global or external agent registry. It does not explicitly name the sibling memanto_get_agent as the single-agent alternative, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 inferable: an agent wanting an inventory of agents would pick this over memanto_get_agent, which needs an identifier. However, the description never states when to prefer listing versus fetching a specific agent, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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