agent_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions pagination via `next_page` token and the fields returned, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or idempotent. While the verb 'List' implies safety, the description could be more transparent about behavior.

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 concise with five sentences, each adding value. It front-loads the purpose and then provides usage guidance without unnecessary detail. No fluff.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the summary fields, pagination, and the linkage to `agent_get`. It provides a complete context for using this tool in a workflow.

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 must compensate. It only hints at pagination ('Page via the returned `next_page` token') but does not explain that `limit` controls page size or that `page` is a token. The parameters remain poorly described.

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 tool's purpose: 'List managed agents (summaries: id, name, model, description, metadata).' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('managed agents'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling `agent_get` by noting that this tool returns summaries while `agent_get` provides full config.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Find an `agent_*` to run (unless the user gave one). Read each agent's name/description/metadata to understand what it does... Use `agent_get` for full config before starting.' This tells when to use this tool and when to use a sibling, and outlines a workflow.

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