buzz_agents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output content (display name + pubkey) and that the operation is a listing, which implies read-only behavior. However, it does not mention ordering, whether the list is exhaustive, pagination, or any authentication requirement, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. The verb 'List' is front-loaded, and every phrase ('known agents/people', 'display name + pubkey', 'on the relay') adds useful constraint. Nothing is redundant or wasteful.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is largely complete: it states the action, the resource, and the fields returned. It would benefit from a brief note on whether the list includes all agents or only cached ones, and whether an empty list is possible, but these are minor for such a simple tool.

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 the input schema is empty and schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics since there are none. It correctly focuses on output rather than input.

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 a precise resource ('known agents/people') with the specific output fields (display name + pubkey) and scope ('on the relay'). This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like buzz_whoami or buzz_channel_members without needing to inspect schemas.

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 when to use it: whenever the agent needs the set of known agents/people on the relay. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use buzz_whoami for the current user' or 'use buzz_channel_members for relay members within a channel.' The context is clear but there is no direct routing guidance.

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