List currently connected agents

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, confirming this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds no extra context beyond what annotations provide, such as output format or pagination behavior, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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, succinct sentence of six words. There is no redundancy or extraneous information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for a simple list operation. However, it does not explain what 'connected' means or return value shape, which would have added completeness, but such details are not critical for a tool of this simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). As per the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description does not need to explain parameters that do not exist, and it sufficiently conveys the tool's action.

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 a specific verb+resource combination ('List all connected Cymulate agents') that clearly states the tool's function. The word 'connected' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'cymulate_agents_list_all', which lists all agents.

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 that this tool is for retrieving connected agents, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'cymulate_agents_list_all'. There is no clear context or exclusion criteria provided.

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