mdan_list_agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scope ('all installed') and return content ('with their roles'), which is useful but minimal. No contradictions found.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word contributes: the action, the resource, the scope, and the output content.

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?

The tool is simple — no parameters, read-only annotation, clear purpose. The absence of an output schema means the return structure is not fully specified, but the description does state that agents and their roles are returned, which is adequate for a low-complexity listing tool.

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 description bears no obligation to explain parameter semantics. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the description's mention of what gets returned is enough context for a parameterless tool.

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 ('List'), resource ('all installed MDAN agents'), and scope ('with their roles'). It is distinguishable from sibling mdan_list_workflows by the resource type, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied through the clear purpose — if you need to enumerate installed agents and their roles, this is the tool. No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives are named, but for a simple read-only list tool the context is reasonably inferable.

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