agent_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns JSON info about the agent, which is helpful, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only (implied by 'lihat'/'view'), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or if it affects system state. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 and front-loaded: it immediately states the purpose in the first sentence and the return type in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without fluff. However, the use of mixed languages (Indonesian and English) and minor formatting issues (e.g., 'str:' prefix) slightly detract from clarity, preventing a perfect score.

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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and return format, but with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, it lacks context on usage scenarios, prerequisites, or behavioral details. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is just sufficient for a basic tool.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly doesn't mention any. According to the rules, 0 parameters warrants a baseline score of 4, as there's nothing to compensate for and no redundancy.

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 tool's purpose: 'Lihat info agent ini: ID, nama, room, status koneksi.' This translates to 'View this agent's info: ID, name, room, connection status.' It specifies the verb ('lihat'/'view') and the resource ('agent info') with concrete attributes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'room_info' or 'capability_get_self', which might also retrieve agent-related data, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'room_info', 'capability_get_self', and 'agent_read_inbox', there's no indication of whether this tool is for current agent info, all agents, or specific contexts. It lacks any 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' statements, leaving usage entirely implicit based on the name alone.

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