who

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not explicitly state safety, authentication requirements, or any limitations. This is adequate for a simple tool but not richly transparent.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence contains exactly the necessary information with no filler. Every word contributes value.

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 zero-parameter, low-complexity tool with no output schema, this description is complete enough. It tells the agent what the tool does and what it returns, leaving no critical gaps.

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 description does not need to explain parameter behavior. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters and no ambiguity to resolve.

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 ('List'), resource ('all currently connected agents'), and what is returned ('their status'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dispatch, ack, and peek, which imply different actions.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever an agent needs to see which agents are currently connected and their status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple no-argument query tool, the context is clear.

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