ops_list_agents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions listing with filters but lacks details on pagination behavior (e.g., default limit, max results), ordering, or error handling. The absence of behavioral traits leaves agents uncertain about side effects or performance.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core action. It avoids unnecessary words and clearly states the supported filters. However, it is not overly terse—it could benefit from minor structural improvements.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain the return structure, pagination details, or any constraints beyond parameter names. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior or output without additional context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter details are provided in the schema description. The tool description only names the filters generically without explaining their meaning, format, or typical values. For instance, it does not clarify that 'agent_code' is a unique identifier or that 'status' uses an enum. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 'list or find' and the resource 'agents in a workspace', and mentions supported filters, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ops_get_agent' that likely target a single agent. However, it could be more specific about the primary use case.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings like 'ops_get_agent' for single agent retrieval or 'ops_list_agent_tags' for tags. No explicit when-not or alternative usage is mentioned.

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