list-agents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the exact return envelope (agents array, agent_limit, agent_count, can_create_more) and, crucially, that the list mixes the caller's own agents with shared platform agents marked `editable: false` — a non-obvious behavior an agent would otherwise get wrong. It stops short of stating whether the result is paginated or how visibility permissions are determined.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope before moving to the endpoint and return shape, so an agent gets the essential facts in the first clause. The return-shape enumeration is dense but earns its place given the absence of an output schema; the `Mirrors syntx.agents.list` fragment is the only lower-value content.

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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it enumerates, the exact response fields, and the semantic caveat about mixed ownership. Little is left to guess before invoking it.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is a closed empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly does not invent parameter guidance.

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 and resource ('List the AI agents') and pins the scope to 'visible to the authenticated account', which is the key discriminator against get-agent and the create/update/delete-agent siblings. The immediate identification of the backing endpoint (`GET /api/v1/agents/list`) removes any ambiguity about what is being enumerated.

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 scoping phrase 'visible to the authenticated account' implies the right context for use, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get-agent for a single record, or any dependency/prerequisite call. Usage is inferable from the name and scope rather than stated.

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