goclaw_agent_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List all agents' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't address important aspects like whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes rate limits, or what format the output takes. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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 list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, it lacks important context about authentication requirements, output format, pagination, and differentiation from similar tools. The description covers the basic 'what' but not the 'how' or 'when'.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'include_deleted' clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't mention this parameter at all, so it adds no semantic value beyond what the structured schema already provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('List all agents') and resource ('configured in GoClaw gateway'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'goclaw_agent_get' (which likely retrieves a single agent) or 'goclaw_agent_files_list' (which lists agent files rather than agents themselves).

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. With multiple sibling tools like 'goclaw_agent_get' (for single agent retrieval) and 'goclaw_agent_files_list' (for agent files), the agent receives no explicit or implicit direction about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

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