Agents: List Agents in Account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by adding the concrete endpoint and the required auth mechanism (User API key in the api-access-token header), which the annotations do not convey. It still says nothing about pagination or result limits.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the endpoint/auth lines are compact. The trailing language/digit note is somewhat generic boilerplate, but it is short and potentially relevant to the digit-formatted IDs the tool accepts.

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 read-only, one-parameter list call the description is close to adequate, but with no output schema the agent gets no sense of what an agent record contains or how many are returned, and pagination behavior is unaddressed.

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 100% and the single account_id parameter is documented there as the numeric account ID. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

"List all agents in the account" states a specific verb and resource, so the core action is unambiguous. However, the sibling set contains several other list tools (gapify_list_agent_bots, gapify_list_inbox_agents, gapify_list_team_agents), and the description offers no cue to distinguish this account-level agent list from those.

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?

There is no indication of when to choose this tool over gapify_list_agent_bots or gapify_list_team_agents, and no prerequisites are stated. The only guidance is implicit — that it is account-scoped — which the agent must infer from the resource path.

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