list_agents

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose real operational context: page_size is capped at 100 and results are cursor-paged. It says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, or what 'inventoried' scope excludes, so coverage is partial.

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 short sentences: purpose plus filters first, pagination constraint second. Front-loaded and free of padding, though the pagination note could be tightened.

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 six-parameter list tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers filters and paging adequately. It leaves gaps on filter value semantics and scope of the inventory, so it is viable but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description has to compensate. It names the four filter parameters (name, severity, supplier, library) and explains cursor and page_size, effectively touching all six, but adds no value semantics (e.g., allowed severity values) beyond the schema's own titles.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List inventoried AI agents'), so the agent knows this enumerates agents. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_agent or the similarly-named list_roi_agents, but the basic purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for enumerating agents and lists the supported filters, which helps the agent construct a query. It gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with get_agent/list_roi_agents, so usage is only implied.

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