JamJet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists agents with optional filters but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('List registered agents') and adds necessary detail ('with optional filters') without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral traits like mutability or side effects. For a listing tool with three parameters, more context is needed to guide an agent effectively, especially without structured support.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (protocol, skill, status) with their descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying filtering functionality, which is already covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('registered agents'), specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like jamjet_discover_agent (discovery vs. listing) and jamjet_list_executions (agents vs. executions). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as jamjet_get_events, which might also involve listing, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions optional filters but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for administrative tasks or how it relates to jamjet_discover_agent, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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