list_agents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the server parameter's meaning but does not describe pagination behavior (page/size), the effect of the search parameter, or any potential side effects (none expected, but not stated). The description lacks critical behavior details for a listing tool.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loads the main purpose. The second sentence awkwardly explains the server parameter without formatting or integration with the schema. While concise, it is not well-structured and misses the opportunity to efficiently describe all parameters in a consistent format.

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 has 4 parameters (all undocumented in schema) and no output schema shown in the description, the description should provide more context. It does mention the output fields but omits pagination and search behavior. The description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities and limitations.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, leaving all parameters undocumented. The description only partially explains the 'server' parameter ('which configured server to target (default active/default)'), but provides no semantics for 'page', 'size', or 'search'. This is insufficient for an agent to use parameters correctly without additional knowledge.

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 clearly states the tool's action (list agents) and the resource (UTMStack endpoints), and lists the fields returned (hostname, ip, os, status, version, id). This makes the purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like list_agent_commands or get_agent_by_hostname. However, it does not mention pagination or the search/filter capability, which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_agent_by_hostname for a single agent, or list_agents_with_commands for command history). It also fails to note that the 'search' parameter can be used to filter results. The description provides no context for appropriate usage.

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