List agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the default sort order and omits meaningful behavior such as pagination via cursor and the default exclusion of archived agents and subagents.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, but for an 11-parameter listing tool this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It also omits any front-loaded statement of purpose.

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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and filtering/pagination behavior to explain, a lone sentence about ordering leaves the agent without the information needed to call this correctly. Purpose, scoping requirements, and default filters are all absent.

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 description coverage is 82%, above the threshold where the schema carries parameter documentation, so 3 is the baseline. The description adds no parameter detail and arguably conflicts with the configurable sort enum by asserting a fixed ordering.

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 never states what the tool does; it only says how results are ordered. The purpose (listing agents) is inferable solely from the tool name and title, so the description adds no clarifying verb+resource of its own.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no distinction from siblings like agents_get or agents_events_list, and no mention of required scoping (orgID/projectID). The ordering note is not usage guidance.

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