list_mapping_agents

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

No annotations provided, so description is the sole source. It discloses that the tool returns agents spawned by a run, but lacks details on side effects, required permissions, or behavior for invalid run_ids. For a read-like operation, this is moderate.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and immediately conveys the tool's purpose.

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 existence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers the essential purpose and context of a simple list tool with one required parameter, leaving little ambiguity.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description implicitly defines run_id as the mapping run's ID. The parameter name is self-explanatory, and the description adds context. However, no format or constraints are given, so value is limited.

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 clearly states the action 'list' and the resource 'agents spawned by a mapping run', with examples of agent types (planner, modality agents). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_mapping_runs.

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 after a mapping run to view spawned agents, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other list tools) or provide exclusions.

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