list_knowledge_agents

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe listing operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: which agents are included based on visibility and administrator status, and what the 'mode' and 'allow_foundation_backfill' fields mean, including that foundation-backfill answers are labeled.

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 front-loaded with the core action and scope, then adds definitions for fields an agent may encounter. It is appropriately sized, though the multiple quoted field explanations make it slightly less tight than a maximally concise definition.

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?

With zero parameters, an output schema present, and readOnlyHint=true, the definition provides enough context to call the tool correctly. It explains visibility scope, administrator behavior, and key output concepts, so no critical information is missing.

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 input parameters, so parameter semantics are not a major concern and the baseline is 4. The description instead explains relevant output-field concepts such as 'mode' and 'allow_foundation_backfill,' which adds context beyond the empty input schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List the Knowledge Agents you can ask.' It immediately clarifies scope by distinguishing the user's own agents from other people's published agents, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 wording implies that this tool is used to discover agents that can later be asked questions, and it references ask_knowledge_agent for the meaning of mode. However, it does not explicitly say when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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