agents_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only hints at returning machine associations but does not mention permissions, side effects, return format, or whether agents are filtered by state. The truncated fragment leaves significant behavioral information undisclosed.

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 appropriately brief, but it is an incomplete sentence that ends abruptly ('i...'). While it avoids waste, the truncation harms structural completeness and makes it read as an unfinished thought.

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 the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description is expected to clearly explain what is returned. It starts to say 'which machine each is on' but is cut off, leaving the response format and any additional agent fields undisclosed. For a simple list operation, this is incomplete.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description's mention of 'ALL the user's machines' adds useful context about the implicit scope, which is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Lists') and a clear resource ('agents currently working across ALL the user's machines in the mesh'), which distinguishes it from siblings like agent_mesh_status or agent_inbox. However, the description is truncated mid-sentence, cutting off the list of details about each agent, so it does not fully specify the output's scope.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as agent_mesh_status or agent_checkin. It implies a monitoring/listing use case but does not state any exclusions or preferred contexts.

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