list_agents

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

The description explicitly states it is a read-only check, does not contact a model provider or test account balance, and explains provider_status remains not_checked. This fully discloses behavioral traits, especially since no annotations are provided.

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, concise and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: first sentence lists actions, second explains a specific behavioral detail. Zero waste.

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 no output schema, the description could be more complete about the return value or format of the agent list. It mentions reporting the config path but does not describe the full output structure, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. With 0 parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description adds context about what the tool does without 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 clearly states the tool lists agents from the active runtime config, verifies executable and model-argument wiring, and reports the config path. This specific verb+resource set distinguishes it from siblings like read_workspace_file or create_task.

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 read-only checks without contacting providers, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_workspace_file or when not to use it.

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