List agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the bar for the description is lower. It adds valuable context beyond the annotations: the administrative auth requirement for instance-wide lists and the disclosure that agent tokens are redacted. These are exactly the auth-needs and response-content disclosures the rubric rewards; no contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three tightly-scoped sentences (~50 words) with zero waste. The purpose and returned fields are front-loaded first, followed by scope/auth, then token redaction. Each sentence carries distinct, necessary information and 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 read-only list tool, nothing critical is missing: purpose, returned fields, scope behavior, auth requirement, token redaction, fully documented parameters, and an output schema that covers return values. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly without consulting anything else.

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% and every parameter already has a solid description (page range, org_id scoping, per_page clamping behavior), so the baseline is 3. The description adds one meaningful insight beyond the schema — that omitting org_id yields an instance-wide list requiring admin — which informs invocation choice but does not substantially expand the schema's parameter documentation.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lists') with a specific resource ('build agents') and explicitly enumerates the returned fields (platform, capacity, version, last contact). The diagnostic hook 'why is nothing being built' further distinguishes it from siblings like get_agent (single agent), list_agent_tasks (tasks), and create/update/delete_agent (mutations).

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?

Provides clear usage context: it is the diagnostic call for stalled builds, and the org_id vs instance-wide distinction with its admin requirement tells the agent how scope changes invocation. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., 'use get_agent for a single agent'), so it stops short of a 5.

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