List agents

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real context beyond that: results are permission-filtered to what the caller may view, Orchestra-managed agents are included by default, and prompts/secrets are deliberately omitted. It doesn't discuss pagination or result ordering, which is a mild gap for a list tool.

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 no filler; the scope constraint (credential's workspace, visibility filter) is front-loaded and the exclusion/redirect follows immediately.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope, filtering, and omissions well. The only missing element is paging behavior for a paginated listing, though the schema documents page/page_size adequately.

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 100% and every parameter (including the X-Orchestra-Account-Id account override) is already documented in the schema. The description gestures at the orchestra_managed concept ('including those managed by Orchestra') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 agents) plus precise scope: the workspace the credential resolves to, including Orchestra-managed agents, filtered by caller visibility. It also distinguishes itself from get_agent by naming what that sibling is needed for (prompts and secrets), so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Clear context for when to use this tool and an explicit redirect: 'get an agent by id for those' (prompts/secrets). It also implicitly scopes to viewable agents. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use cases such as preferring list_agent_* sub-resources, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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