mesh_agents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that it reads a persistent SQLite roster (not live), prunes after 15 minutes, and explains the 'stale' flag. This is rich behavioral detail that goes beyond the schema, adding significant transparency.

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 moderately long but packed with necessary detail. It's front-loaded with the key purpose and then provides important behavioral nuances. Each sentence adds value; no fluff. Slightly overlong but justified.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key behaviors: source of data, pruning, staleness, and sorting. It's sufficient for an agent to call correctly and interpret results. The description effectively self-contains all necessary context.

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 50%, with page and page_size having descriptions only for basic semantics. The description adds context about sorting (most-recently-seen first) and the 'stale' flag, which helps interpret results but doesn't add much about parameters themselves. However, it does clarify pagination context and result ordering, compensating for the schema's sparse descriptions.

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?

States it lists agents seen via heartbeats on the mesh, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mesh_rooms or mesh_list_stations. It also specifies it's a roster of agents, not rooms or stations, making it unique.

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?

Implies use when you need to see which agents are on the mesh, but doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives. It does clarify it reads a local roster rather than a live query, which helps set expectations, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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