wafle_agents_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; description is consistent and adds return-content context: agents have system_prompt, tools whitelist, guardrails, and trigger. No contradictions or destructive behavior implied.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and entity, plus compact filter enumeration. Every word contributes.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description states what each listed agent contains and the available filters. This is sufficient for a straightforward list operation with idempotent/read-only annotations.

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 only describes slug (33% coverage), while description confirms status and trigger_type as optional filters and enumerates status values. This adds some meaning but doesn't fully explain trigger_type values or filter behavior beyond the schema enums.

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 'List custom agents defined for a store', a specific verb+object that clearly names the resource. It distinguishes from sibling get/stats/runs tools by targeting custom agent definitions rather than runs or templates, and notes filtering capabilities.

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?

It provides clear context by stating the store slug and optional status/trigger_type filters. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the list scope and filter options make intended usage clear.

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