Agent Directory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavior beyond annotations by disclosing pagination (offset/limit), the returned fields, and the 'Free L0' cost tier. This gives useful operational context without contradicting 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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: action/resource, usage intent, returned fields, pagination, and cost. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only listing with two optional parameters, the description covers the key operational details: what is returned, pagination, and cost. There is no output schema, but the listed fields are sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. It could be slightly richer about the exact response format, but nothing critical is missing.

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 input schema fully documents limit and offset, including defaults and max. The description only mentions 'Paginated (offset/limit)' without adding semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all agents registered on the Golden Thread onboarding program'), with clear scope ('full agent directory'). It lists the returned fields, distinguishing this from siblings like list_archetypes or get_network_stats.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this to browse the full agent directory.' It provides clear context, though it does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions. Given the sibling set, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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