list_agents

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context. It does add meaningful behavior beyond annotations: the set of fields returned and an edition requirement that determines whether the call will succeed. It omits pagination behavior and empty-result handling, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, fully front-loaded with the action and the returned fields, followed by the edition constraint. Every sentence earns its place; there is no repetition or filler.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with an annotation and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers what is returned and the edition requirement. The only missing elements are return-shape details like pagination or whether results are sorted and limited.

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, so the baseline is 4 per the scoring rules. The description correctly does not waste space explaining parameters, as there are none and schema coverage is 100%.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all registered remote agents') and enumerates the returned fields (connection state, runtime type, hostname, label), which makes the tool's scope unmistakable. It does not explicitly name a sibling or explain how it differs, but no other tool in the sibling list covers agents, so ambiguity is low.

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 one useful precondition ('Requires the Personal edition') but gives no guidance on when to use this versus other listing tools (e.g., list_containers, get_swarm_info) or when not to use it. Usage is only implied by the verb 'list'.

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