List agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes useful context about what is returned (permission modes, features, quota health), but adds nothing about freshness, pagination, or scope.

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?

A single tight fragment with zero filler, and the most informative content (the returned attributes) is front-loaded. It is under-specified rather than verbose, which is a content problem, not a structural one.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it names the fields but not the structure or ordering. Adequate for a simple enumerator, but an agent still cannot predict the response shape.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The enumerated fields do hint at the shape of results, which slightly compensates for the absent output schema.

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 phrase 'Installed agents' names a specific resource and the enumerated fields (permission modes, supported features, quota health) make the retrieval intent clear, distinguishing it from list_models/list_tasks. It lacks an explicit verb, but the name and sibling set make 'list' unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives like list_models or list_tasks, nor any stated precondition (e.g., that it reflects only locally installed agents). Usage is implied by the name alone.

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