List MCP-Enabled Agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output is 'ready-to-use configuration', but it does not disclose rate limits, auth needs, or pagination behavior. This provides some context but not rich behavioral detail.

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 three short sentences with a clear 'Returns:' section. It front-loads the main action and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 parameterless listing tool with strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the scope (all MCP-supported agents) and the nature of the return (ready-to-use configs), though it doesn't enumerate exact fields. Given the simplicity, this is sufficient.

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 input schema is fully covered by default. The description adds meaning by explaining the output is 'ready-to-use configuration', which goes beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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' and clearly identifies the resource as 'all agents with MCP server support', then states it returns 'connection configs'. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like yagoo_get_agent (single agent) and yagoo_list_categories (categories).

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 when an agent needs a full inventory of MCP-enabled agents, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. No mention of yagoo_get_agent for single-agent queries or yagoo_search for filtering.

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