config_list_agent_statuses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The single sentence only states the basic action and gives no information about permissions, pagination behavior, or whether statuses are current or historical.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words, but it is under-specified given the tool's complexity. It earns a middle score because it is not verbose, but it lacks valuable details that could be included without bloating the text.

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, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is far too minimal to be complete. While an output schema exists, the agent still lacks contextual information about what 'agent statuses' means, what the region parameter does, or how max_results affects the list.

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?

The input schema has three parameters (instance_id, region, max_results) with zero description coverage. The description does not mention any of them, forcing the agent to infer meaning solely from names and types, which is insufficient for instance_id and region.

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 'List agent statuses.' clearly identifies the action (listing) and the resource (agent statuses). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like config_list_users or config_put_user_status, leaving ambiguity about what 'agent' means in this context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, required parameters, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over similar list tools.

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