get_agents

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It describes the resource type but doesn't mention side effects, return format, or whether this is a read-only operation beyond the verb 'get.' This is insufficient for a tool that could have listing complexities.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the second sentence provides useful background on agents. No wasted 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 simple parameterless interface and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for basic usage. However, it lacks explicit behavioral guidance and differentiation from similar tools, though those are covered in other dimensions.

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 doesn't need to explain them. The empty input schema is fully documented, meeting the baseline for no-parameter tools.

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 'Get all agent automations from Itential Platform,' identifying the specific resource and action. It explains what agents are, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_automations, so it's not fully differentiated.

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 for listing agent automations and provides context about their nature, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_automations or trigger_automation.

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