List agent types

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating safe read operation. The description adds context that this tool lists agent types and that create_agent always provisions them, clarifying it's a static catalog. This adds value beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides relevant context about its optional nature and relationship to create_agent. No unnecessary words or repetition. Front-loaded effectively.

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?

Given the simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essentials: what the tool does and its role relative to create_agent. It hints at the return type (list of agent types). It could mention the output format or whether the list is exhaustive, but for this tool, it's sufficient.

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?

There are no parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline score for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description meets that.

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 clearly states the tool lists agent types provided by plori. The verb 'List' and resource 'agent type' are specific. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_agents' by focusing on types rather than instances, and mentions 'create_agent' to add context. However, it could more explicitly differentiate from 'list_agents'.

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 notes that this tool is 'informational and optional' because create_agent always provisions the agent type, implying it's not required for workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or compare it to alternatives like 'list_agents'. The guidance is present but limited.

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