List agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the closing 'Read operation' merely repeats that. The description does add the pagination behavior (sending page_size or cursor opts into paging, sending neither returns the full list), which is useful operational context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then filtering, then sorting/pagination. Efficient and free of padding, though the trailing 'Read operation' is redundant against the annotations.

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 12-param, zero-required list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering, sorting and pagination adequately, and the schema carries full parameter detail. The main omission is any hint about the shape of the returned agent list, but that is a minor gap given the otherwise complete coverage.

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 all 12 parameters are already documented with equivalent or greater detail in the schema. The description's summary of filters, sort_order, page_size and cursor adds no syntax, format, or constraint information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 agents') plus the access scope ('the caller has access to'), and enumerates the filterable dimensions. It is clearly distinguishable from singular siblings like retrieve_agent, though it does not name the alternative.

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 lists what can be filtered/sorted/paginated, which implies usage, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions against siblings such as retrieve_agent, list_agent_versions, or list_agent_mcp_servers. The agent must infer the routing itself.

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