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 describes the listing action and return fields, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or what side effects (if any) may occur. The behavior is implied by 'list', but not fully 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?

The description is a single, clear, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and returned data. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary details or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema) and the description adequately covers what is returned (agent name, description, bound Skill, personality). It does not explain the list format or whether agents are paginated, but for a basic list tool this is acceptable.

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 the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, and the description adds no harmful ambiguity.

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 available SoloFlow Agent agents and specifies the returned fields (name, description, bound Skill, personality settings). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like soloflow_list_skills, which list skills instead of agents.

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 the tool is used to discover available agents, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., soloflow_list_skills for skills). No exclusionary guidance is provided, though the resource type (Agents) is clear enough.

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