List registered specialists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that it is a read/list operation ('Lists'), that provider assignments are current ('currently performs'), and specifies the returned attributes. Minor omissions such as auth or failure behavior are low-relevance for a parameterless query.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core listing semantics and followed immediately by a practical pointer to consumption. No redundant phrasing; even the title is enriched by the 'run_orchestrator' scope.

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?

For a 0-parameter list with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields and the integration point (run_orchestrator workers array). Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and call it correctly.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, there is nothing to document; the description correctly focuses on the output and downstream usage. It also links the returned ids to run_orchestrator's workers array, which is more useful than any input-parameter note.

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 clear verb ('Lists') and the precise resource ('specialists registered for run_orchestrator'), and enumerates the returned fields. It stands apart from sibling tools like list_providers/list_models by scoping to specialists and their provider assignment.

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?

Tells the agent exactly when to call it: before composing run_orchestrator's workers array, using the returned ids instead of redeclaring specialists. It does not state exclusions or when to prefer a sibling, but for a simple registry query the implied context is clear.

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