t2000_agents

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that agents are on-chain and distinct from services, but does not mention read-only nature, potential auth needs, or rate limits. Adequate but could be more explicit.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences covering mode selection and category examples. No wasted words, front-loaded with core purpose.

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?

With three parameters all documented in schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains both usage modes. Could mention return type or pagination but not critical. Slightly above average.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds slight clarity by explaining that limit and category apply only when listing, but does not add substantive new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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?

Clearly states it looks up agents in the t2000 AGENT DIRECTORY, distinguishes from t2000_services, and explains two distinct modes (list vs profile) with specific verb-resource pairing.

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?

Explicitly separates usage based on address presence: 'No address → list; With address → profile.' Also distinguishes from sibling t2000_services, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool for other siblings.

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