list_agents

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

No annotations are provided, placing the full burden on the description. 'List all available agents' merely restates the tool name and offers no additional behavioral details such as pagination behavior, sorting, permissions, or whether it returns all agents at once or in pages. This adds no transparency beyond the name.

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, front-loaded sentence, which is concise and free of unnecessary words. However, it is somewhat under-specified, as it omits details about pagination and parameters, though this is not a violation of conciseness per se.

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 two pagination parameters, no output schema, and many sibling list tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain how 'all' agents relates to limit/offset, and it doesn't clarify the return format or any constraints, leaving substantial gaps for an agent to guess.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'limit' or 'offset' parameters at all. It offers no meaning for these parameters, leaving the agent to infer their purpose from the schema alone, which is insufficient.

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: listing all available agents. The verb 'list' and resource 'agents' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling list tools like list_skills and list_connections, which target different resources.

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 for listing agents but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related tools like get_agent or list_agent_tools. There is no mention of pagination or typical use cases, so the guidance is only implicit.

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