get_agents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read-only listing operation and provides pagination details (page, per_page, max 100). However, it does not explicitly state that no side effects occur, nor does it describe ordering, default behavior, or response structure beyond what the schema indicates.

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 extremely concise with a clear two-part structure: a one-sentence summary followed by a brief Args section. Every sentence earns its place, and the front-loaded verb makes the purpose immediately obvious.

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 paginated list tool with an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It covers the resource and pagination parameters. However, it lacks any mention of ordering, filtering alternatives, or the fact that output schema describes each agent, though these are partially covered by the output schema and sibling tool names. Slightly more detail would make it fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description is the primary source for parameter meaning. It adds value by explaining 'page' as 'Page number' and 'per_page' as 'Results per page (max 100)', which is more informative than the schema's generic titles and defaults.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('agents') and scope ('all agents with pagination'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_agent_by_id (single agent) and filter_agents (filtered search).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_agent_by_id should be used for individual agents or that filter_agents is better for searching with criteria. The description simply states its behavior without usage context.

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