Get Agent Roster

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the output (list with id and specialization) and implies a read-only operation via 'Returns'. It does not mention edge cases like empty roster or authentication, but for a simple getter the core behavior is transparent.

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 main purpose, followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no fluff 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?

For a simple no-parameter list getter with no output schema, the description covers the return fields and the use case. It could briefly mention what happens if no agents are available, but the provided context is sufficient for most scenarios. The sibling relationship is clearly defined.

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, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to explain parameters. No additional info is necessary.

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 starts with 'Returns the list of local agents available for delegation', which is a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the returned fields (id and specialization), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool delegate_task.

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?

Explicitly states 'Call this before delegate_task to decide which agent_name fits a given subtask.' This gives a clear when-to-use directive and names the alternative tool, providing unambiguous usage guidance.

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