list_local_agents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It partially compensates by enumerating the returned fields (name, state, genome composition, strategy, reputation), but omits auth requirements, read-only confirmation, pagination, or error behavior. The 'List' verb implies a read, but this is not stated.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then return contents, then a clarifying definition. No filler or repetition.

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 output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is the main gap it needs to fill for a list tool. It remains slightly thin on when to prefer it over sibling listing tools, but nothing critical to invocation is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'state' filter and 'project_root' default. The description adds no filter syntax, valid values, or interaction detail beyond that, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'List Agents registered in the local project workspace.' It further defines Agents as 'local constructs that compose multiple Genes into pipelines,' which conceptually separates it from list_local_genes. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling to defer to, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Scoping to the 'local project workspace' implies when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no reference to alternatives such as list_local_genes or get_gene_detail. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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