resemble_list_detect_agents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the list is scoped to the API key and describes the resource as 'managed authenticity investigators', which adds some context. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or whether the list is cached or live, but for a simple list operation this is a reasonable baseline.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, resource, and scope efficiently.

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 list tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It could mention whether the list is paginated or what the output shape is, but the output schema likely covers the return structure. The main gap is lack of explicit sibling differentiation, but the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The description correctly indicates the scope ('available to this API key'), which is the only relevant semantic context. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Resemble Detect Agents'), and clarifies the scope ('available to this API key') with a parenthetical gloss ('managed authenticity investigators'). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like resemble_list_investigation_runs.

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 implies usage context by noting the agents are 'available to this API key', which suggests it is for enumerating accessible agents. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as resemble_list_investigation_runs or resemble_get_detection.

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