herdr_agent_listList all coding agents recognized by herdr, showing each agent's status (idle, working, blocked, done, or unknown) and pane for quick monitoring.
List the coding agents herdr recognizes, with each agent's status (idle/working/blocked/done/unknown) and pane. The primary monitoring tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's added value is naming the status vocabulary and pane field, but it says nothing about ordering, filtering, or freshness of the snapshot — context that matters for a monitoring tool.
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?
Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the status vocabulary delivered immediately after. Nothing needs to be trimmed.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully previews the return shape (per-agent status and pane). That is sufficient for a zero-parameter list tool; only minor gaps remain around ordering, snapshot freshness, or what 'unknown' status implies.
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 no parameters (empty object, 100% schema coverage), so there is no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies; nothing is required of the description here.
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 coding agents herdr recognizes') and enumerates the fields returned (status values, pane), so the agent knows exactly what this yields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearest siblings (herdr_agent_get, herdr_agent_wait), but 'List' and 'primary monitoring tool' make the breadth-vs-single-agent split inferable.
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 primary monitoring tool' implies the context in which to reach for this rather than another tool, but it names no alternatives and gives no when-not conditions (e.g. use herdr_agent_get for a single agent's detail, herdr_agent_wait to block until state changes). Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.