Get Agents

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, which already establish the safety profile. The description adds the scope of 'all' and explains agent endpoint triggers, but doesn't disclose behavior such as pagination or output size, making it adequate but not rich.

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?

Three sentences: the first is a clear action, the next two provide necessary domain context about agents and endpoint triggers. No redundant filler; the structure front-loads the key information.

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 parameter-less read-only tool, the description covers what it does and why agents matter. The presence of an output schema covers return details, and the annotations cover safety, so this is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. Per the rubric, zero params get a baseline score of 4.

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' – a specific verb and resource. It further defines what agents are, distinguishing them from generic automations/workflows, which helps differentiate from sibling tools like get_automations.

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 this tool is for retrieving agent automations but never explicitly says when to use it over related tools such as get_automations or expose_agent. It provides domain context but no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so the agent isn't guided on tool selection.

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