trmm_list_agents

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It does add useful behavioral context by naming filter capabilities and the 'status' aspect of the output, but it does not disclose pagination, default limit behavior, or result shape. The extra context is moderate rather than rich.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then enumerates filter options. Every word earns its place, with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 read-only list tool with no required parameters and a clear filter surface, the description covers the essential calling context: what is returned conceptually (agents with status) and how to narrow results. It does not describe the response structure, but no output schema exists and the operation is simple enough that the main gap is the lack of sibling routing rather than missing invocation details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, and it does well for most of them: 'client/site id' maps to client_id and site_id, 'monitoring type (server/workstation)' clarifies monitoring_type, 'online state' explains offline_only, and 'hostname substring' gives meaning to search. Limit and fields are not explained, but they are conventional and self-explanatory, so this is a strong partial compensation.

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 verb and resource: 'List agents with their status.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like trmm_get_agent (single agent) and trmm_fleet_overview by focusing on the list/filter behavior. The filter axes are named specifically, making the tool's purpose 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 usage for listing and filtering agents, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over siblings like trmm_fleet_overview or trmm_get_agent. It provides clear context ('List agents with their status') but no exclusions or alternative routing, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing among many similar trmm_* tools.

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