list_agents

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 correctly implies a read-only operation but does not mention pagination, performance characteristics, or the structure of the returned details. This is adequate for a simple list tool but lacks depth that an agent might need for safe invocation.

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 very concise: a one-line purpose, three usage examples, and a four-item status list. Every part is useful, and the most important information (purpose) is front-loaded. There is no wasted text.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter usage, and status meanings. It does not describe the return format, which would be helpful but is not strictly required since the tool simply 'list[s]' agents with 'details'. The description is largely complete for an agent to decide whether and how to use it.

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 coverage is 100% (the parameter has a description and enum), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete usage examples and listing each status with a brief meaning, which helps the agent understand how to use the filter effectively beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'all available agents', clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_agent' and 'agent_memory' by focusing solely on listing, and the usage examples reinforce the purpose.

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 clear usage examples for different status filters and lists all possible statuses with meanings, which guides the agent on how to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the siblings do not include another list-agents tool, so the guidance is sufficient for practical use.

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