get_agents_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies read-only via 'Retrieve' and describes the output (list of agents and status), but it does not explicitly confirm safety or side-effect-free behavior. For a simple read tool this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a 'WHEN TO USE' list that adds practical guidance. It is well-organized and avoids unnecessary fluff, though some bullets in the list are slightly redundant (e.g., 'see who else is working' and 'check if other agents are currently active').

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 tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema), and the description adequately explains the return content ('list of all registered agents and their current status') and key usage contexts. It does not detail edge cases like pagination, but for this scope the description is sufficiently 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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single optional `status` parameter, including default and allowed values. The description does not add new semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score 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's purpose: 'Retrieve a list of all registered agents and their current status.' The verb 'Retrieve' specifies the action, and the resource is explicitly 'all registered agents,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_agents_in_project and get_active_agents which likely filter by project or active status.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section provides concrete scenarios such as starting work, checking active agents, and coordinating multi-agent work. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., 'use get_agents_in_project for project-specific agents'), but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool.

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