neurogenesis__list_agents

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions read-only style content ('list all developmental agents') but does not explicitly state read-only nature, side effects, authorization needs, or any constraints (e.g., pagination). The term 'mount' is ambiguous.

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 short but includes a verbose prefix that may be redundant. The main information is concise, but the structure is not optimally front-loaded as the prefix precedes the core description.

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 description explains the tool returns a list with summary counts, but lacks details on the output format, what the summary counts include, and any limitations. Since there is no output schema, more detail would be beneficial.

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, and schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a tool with no parameters.

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 states the tool returns 'all developmental agents on this mount, with summary counts,' which implies a list operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like neurogenesis__get_agent by indicating a collection. However, the phrasing is somewhat implicit and the prefix adds noise, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as neurogenesis__get_agent or other list tools. The description does not mention any prerequisites or context for using the tool.

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