agent-link-mcp

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about what information is returned ('availability') and scope ('on this system'), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't describe format, pagination, or performance characteristics that would be helpful for behavioral understanding.

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, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. Every word earns its place: 'List' (action), 'all known agents' (scope), 'and their availability' (returned information), 'on this system' (context). There's zero waste or redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 listing tool with no parameters and good annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It explains what information is returned (agents + availability) and the scope (this system). While an output schema would help with return format details, the description gives enough information for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the input requirements (none). The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters that don't exist. It focuses on what the tool does rather than parameter details, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

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 action ('List') and resource ('all known agents and their availability'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_status' (specific agent status) and 'kill_agent' (destructive action), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The description is specific enough to understand what information will be returned.

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 context ('on this system') and suggests this is for inventory/status checking rather than management operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_status' (for a specific agent) or 'spawn_agent' (for creation). The guidance is implied rather than explicit, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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