agent_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the output format (name, auto param, capabilities, strengths) and a key behavioral trait: it does not dispatch tasks, only prepares selection data. This is helpful, though it doesn't explicitly state read-only semantics or absence of side effects beyond the dispatch clarification.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then output format, then usage. The final Chinese sentence ('不自动派单——只备齐选型数据。') is slightly redundant with the preceding 'Use it to pick the right worker' but adds a clarifying negation. Minor redundancy prevents a 5, but it's still efficient.

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 no-parameter list tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is listed, the output shape, and how to use it. It doesn't mention potential edge cases (empty list, permissions), but these are not critical for a basic lookup tool. The exclusion of auto-dispatch further completes the mental model.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no semantics to clarify. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't mislead about them.

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 has a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('all registered agents (run_* workers)'), and ties it to agent_invoke. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like agent_invoke, agent_scan, and agent_eval by clarifying it's a listing/discovery tool, not an execution or evaluation one.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use it to pick the right worker for a task' and adds the exclusion '不自动派单' (doesn't auto-dispatch), which signals the agent should not use this to trigger work. It doesn't name alternatives explicitly, but the reference to agent_invoke and the dispatch exclusion make the usage boundary clear.

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