list_agents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behavior beyond the name, namely that each result shows current workload and capacity and that filtering by availability is possible. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, whether any registration or permission is required, or whether results are limited or paginated.

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 two short, dense sentences with the primary action front-loaded. Every clause adds information: what is listed, how to narrow the list, and what the output includes. There is no filler or repetition of schema 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 simple optional-parameter list tool, this description is largely complete: it names the resource, the filter options, and the primary output fields. Since there is no output schema, mentioning workload and capacity is valuable. A small gap is the lack of any note about default behavior or result shape beyond those two fields, but this is minor given the simplicity of the operation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters in detail. The description lists filter dimensions like capability, tag, status, and availability, which maps onto the schema, but it adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'List registered agents', and immediately adds distinguishing details: the supported filters and the workload/capacity information shown. This clearly separates it from nearby sibling tools like list_tasks or list_vault, and there is no ambiguity about what object it operates on.

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 explains what filters can be applied but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over related siblings such as suggest_assignee, get_usage_report, or register_agent. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or alternatives, so an agent must infer the appropriate context entirely from the tool's name and purpose.

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