List agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields (id, display name, type, template info, call count, custom variable names) and the workspace scope, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 with no filler: the first states the core listing behavior and return shape, the second gives a targeted alternative. The key scoping and differentiation are front-loaded, making the description efficient and easy to parse.

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, read-only list tool with an output schema absent, the description adequately covers return fields, scope, and the main alternative. Pagination parameters are fully documented in the schema, so nothing needed for correct 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%, and both parameters include their own descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema fully carries the meaning.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'List the voice assistants (agents) in the Ringg workspace.' It also differentiates itself from get_agent by mentioning the other tool returns full configuration, so an agent can select the correct tool without confusion.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent to use get_agent for a single agent's full configuration, providing a clear when-to-use alternative. This is direct sibling routing, leaving no ambiguity about the scope of list_agents.

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