chatwoot_list_agents

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe read-only operation. The description adds the account scope and returned fields, but omits details such as ordering, pagination, or the meaning/range of availability status. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 very short and front-loaded, which is appropriate for a simple list tool. The 'Args: output_format: Output format' line is largely redundant with the input schema, preventing a perfect score, but it does not add meaningful bloat.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, scope, and prominent fields. It could mention account context or output format effects more explicitly, but those gaps are minor given the annotations and schema.

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 needed to compensate, but it only repeats 'output_format: Output format,' which adds no real meaning beyond the schema's enum and default. It does not explain the difference between markdown and json output or how the format affects the response.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Lists all agents in the account' and names the returned fields (ID, email, availability status). The sibling tool list confirms there is no competing agent-listing tool, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool—whenever agent details are needed—but provides no explicit guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. Because no sibling tool lists agents, the intended use is fairly obvious, but 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.