list_system_agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the HTTP endpoint and resource name, not behavioral context such as response shape, pagination, authorization needs, or any side effects. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 brief: one short phrase plus the endpoint line. Every token is relevant, and there is no filler or repetition. It is as concise as a zero-parameter GET operation reasonably can be.

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 simple zero-parameter GET with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. However, the phrase 'Metadata Agents' is inconsistent with the tool name 'list_system_agents' and the path '/system/agents', which could confuse an agent about exactly which resource is returned. This ambiguity weakens an otherwise complete minimal definition.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to document. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details, and the baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Get Metadata Agents') and includes the exact endpoint 'GET /system/agents', so an agent knows what operation to invoke. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_system_agents_by_agent_id, though the collection-style path and singular sibling name imply the distinction.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_system_agents_by_agent_id. The description implies 'use this when you want system agents' but provides no explicit exclusions, context, or routing cues beyond the bare endpoint.

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