list_agents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the information returned (name, client, online, push mode, queued count) and implies a read-only listing, but it does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects, nor does it describe permissions, failure conditions, or result ordering.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and returned fields without any filler. Every element earns its place for a zero-parameter listing tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, zero parameters, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete because it enumerates the returned fields. It lacks usage guidance and explicit read-only behavior, but those gaps are minor for a basic room-agent listing 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to clarify. With an empty schema, the baseline score of 4 applies; the description appropriately avoids inventing parameters and instead documents observable output fields.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List the agents') and scopes it to 'your room', making the core purpose clear. It also enumerates the returned fields, which helps an agent understand what the tool provides. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as whoami or join_room, so it falls short of the top score.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like whoami, register, or join_room. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or expected invocation context. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'in your room'.

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