list_agent_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavioral context by saying 'Returns accurate tool list from Watson Orchestrate' and notes that display names/descriptions are included 'when available'. However, it does not disclose edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens if the agent is not found, or if both agent_id and agent_name are provided).

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 compact and well-structured: the first sentence states the primary function, the second provides usage guidance and an example. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

For a simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, parameter usage, example query, and expected content of the response. It is not fully exhaustive (e.g., no mention of error conditions or return format), but it is adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and only lists parameter names, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that either agent_name (with a concrete example 'TimeWeatherAgent') or agent_id can be used. It does not specify precedence or behavior when both are supplied, but the core usage semantics are clear.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'List tools assigned to an agent'. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_standard_tools and list_tools_with_connections by focusing on agent-assigned tools, and it mentions what the response includes (display names and descriptions when available).

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 gives explicit usage context with the example query 'which tools are assigned to TimeWeatherAgent' and instructs to use either agent_name or agent_id. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name direct alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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