list_bots

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the output includes specific fields, implying a read-only list operation. However, it does not clarify potential side effects, pagination, sorting, or any limitations on the number of bots returned.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the key information. Every word is necessary and adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple, zero-parameter list tool, the description adequately covers the purpose and output fields. An output schema exists, so return values are already defined. Minor gap: no mention of ordering or if all bots are guaranteed to be returned.

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 zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by specifying the output fields (status, MCP port, pid, uptime) beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description justifies this 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 action ('list all bots') and the specific fields returned (status, MCP port, pid, uptime). It distinctly separates this tool from siblings like list_bot_tools and bot_call.

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 when to use (to list all bots) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention that filtering is absent or that list_bot_tools is for listing tools per bot. However, the context of sibling tools partially covers this.

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