list_agents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns agent roles, ownership, and naming conventions, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, authorization requirements, or any other behavioral traits beyond the output content.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource ('List all configured agents'). It is concise with no superfluous words.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding of what is listed. However, it lacks details on output structure (e.g., field names, types), potential pagination, or system scope (e.g., workspace vs global). It is minimally complete for a simple list tool but could be improved.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value beyond the empty schema by specifying what information the list will include (roles, ownership, naming conventions), which helps the user understand the output.

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 all configured agents and specifies the attributes returned (roles, ownership, naming conventions). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'get_agent_definition' (single agent) and 'list_runs' (different entity).

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 implies usage when a need to see all agents and their key attributes, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., 'get_agent_definition' for detailed info on a single agent). No exclusionary guidance is provided.

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