List coding agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description reinforces read-only behavior and adds the detail of registration order, which goes beyond the annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides useful context about the returned data.

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 efficient with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, then provides usage guidance in separate short sentences. Each sentence adds value: purpose, read-only/no-args, usage for coordinate_with_agent, and usage for status. No redundant 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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description compensates by listing all returned fields and their order. It also covers a primary use case (finding agent ids) and mentions the alternative (status). For a simple read-only list tool, nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to explain. The description explicitly notes 'takes no arguments', which is helpful confirmation. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and this description meets that.

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 lists every registered agent with a specific set of fields (id, name, model, capabilities, worktree, Git branch/head, status). It distinguishes from siblings by noting it's a full listing, unlike status which focuses on active agents. The verb 'List' and resource 'registered agents' are explicit.

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 gives explicit guidance: use it to find agent ids before coordinate_with_agent, and use status for active agents alongside current work. This differentiates it from the status tool and provides a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use scenario.

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