list_a2a_agents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two real behavioral facts: the feature gate (LANGFLOW_A2A_ENABLED) and the version dependency (Langflow 1.11.x), which tells the agent when the call may fail. It says nothing about the shape, size, or pagination of the returned list, nor about auth requirements.

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?

Two compact sentences with the what and the prerequisite front-loaded; every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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 zero-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the definition covers the purpose and the enablement gate adequately. A brief note on what each returned agent entry contains (e.g. name/card) would close the remaining gap, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes no semantics the description must explain. Baseline 4 applies; there is no parameter surface for the description to add meaning to.

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 and resource ('List available A2A (Agent-to-Agent) agents') and disambiguates the acronym, so the agent knows exactly what entity is being enumerated. It does not however distinguish itself from siblings like get_a2a_agent_card or invoke_a2a_jsonrpc, so it falls short of a 5.

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 names a hard precondition (server-side A2A enablement via LANGFLOW_A2A_ENABLED), which is useful context for whether the call will succeed. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this discovery call over get_a2a_agent_card or invoke_a2a_jsonrpc, leaving the selection implied rather than stated.

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