specialist_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it discloses read-only behavior, the conditional include_permissions flag, and the exact return shape {registry, specialists, total}. This is strong transparency for a simple list operation.

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 crisp sentences deliver the core purpose, return shape, conditional parameter, and a sibling alternative without any filler. Each clause earns its place.

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?

The description covers the main behavior, return shape, and read-only nature, which is strong for a tool without an output schema. The unexplained app_id is a minor gap, but for a simple listing tool the overall guidance is nearly 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 description adds meaningful semantics for include_permissions, explaining that setting it true yields each agent's permission set. However, app_id is never explained beyond the schema's property name, and with 0% schema coverage this leaves a notable gap for a required parameter.

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?

Clearly states it lists the specialist registry from config/specialists.json, enumerating all agents the orchestrator can route work to. It distinguishes this list-all tool from specialist_get, which provides a single agent's full row and persona.

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 marks the operation as read-only and directs the agent to specialist_get for a single agent's full details, providing an unambiguous alternative. This gives clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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