List the platform agent tools

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond this by revealing the return shape, the per-credential can_invoke field, that schemas may be included conditionally, and that this is the discovery entrypoint for capabilities not covered by direct talonic_* tools.

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 well-structured with clear USE WHEN, NOT FOR, ARGS, and RETURNS sections, making it easy to scan. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary because ARGS duplicates the input schema, but the structure and routing guidance justify most of the length.

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 compensates by explicitly specifying the return contract including tools array fields, invocable_count, and totalCount. It also explains the credential-aware behavior, default parameter values, and when to use/avoid the tool, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, with both parameters documented in the input schema. The ARGS section mostly restates the schema information, adding only the default-value emphasis and a slightly clearer phrasing of each flag's effect, which is marginal value.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the platform's agent tool registry', with concrete examples of what is included and that each entry carries its input schema and invocation eligibility. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like talonic_list_fields and talonic_search by stating it returns registry-level metadata rather than field/document data.

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 explicitly provides 'USE WHEN' and 'NOT FOR' sections, naming exact alternative siblings and the conditions that route to them. It even tells the agent the next step after listing: call talonic_invoke_agent_tool with the tool name and args.

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