catalog_list_agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds context by explaining what agents are and their relationship to runs, but could also mention filtering/pagination details. However, given the annotation coverage, it's still solid.

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?

Description is brief, front-loaded with the main action, and adds only essential detail about what agents are and related tools. No wasted sentences.

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?

Given the complexity is moderate (3 optional params, output schema present), the description is sufficient. It explains the tool's purpose, guides usage with related tools, but could slightly enhance with mention of typical use case (e.g., listing during planning). However, with output schema available and annotations covering safety, it's quite 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 100%, with each parameter well-described (limit, start, filter_name). The description adds the conceptual context that agents crawl sources, but doesn't add further parameter semantics beyond what schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool lists SAS Information Catalog discovery agents and explains what agents do (crawl data sources, collect metadata). It goes beyond the name to describe the resource and its role, and it distinguishes itself from related sibling tools by referencing the run and history tools.

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 provides explicit usage context: agents are used to crawl sources, and it direct users to `catalog_run_agent` to start one and `catalog_get_agent_history` to see results. It effectively tells the agent when to use this tool for listing agents, not for running or examining history.

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