list_agent_backends

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions listing and health checking, implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential side effects such as network latency or whether health checks involve pinging each backend. This is a moderate level of transparency, sufficient for a simple list operation but lacking deeper behavioral detail.

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 sentence: 'List available agent backends and check their health.' It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no redundant words or filler.

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?

This is a simple tool with no required parameters and an output schema already provided. The description tells an agent enough to select the tool and invoke it without further clarification. It could mention what the health output looks like, but the output schema likely covers that, so the description is adequately complete.

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, and the schema covers everything automatically. The description need not add parameter details, so the baseline of 4 applies here.

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 available agent backends and checks their health, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_agent_runs and cleanup_agent_run, which focus on agent runs rather than backends.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to see what agent backends exist and their health status. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tools are all run-related, making the use case distinct and obvious.

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