List agents

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's burden is lower. It adds useful context by enumerating the filter values and the returned fields (uuid, name, type, URL), but says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering despite exposing limit/offset.

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 tight sentences: the core action and optional filter come first, the return shape second. No filler, no repetition beyond the necessary enum listing.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description correctly covers the return fields, which is exactly what an agent needs. The remaining gap is pagination semantics for limit/offset, the only substantive omission for a list tool.

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 coverage is only 33% – agent_type is documented in the schema, while limit and offset have no description anywhere. The description merely restates the enum values for agent_type, an optional filter, and never explains the pagination parameters, so it fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Lists the AI agents registered in your VerifyAX workspace") plus the filter dimension, so it is unambiguous what the tool returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like register_agent or delete_agent, but the resource is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 notes the filter is optional and names the allowed connector types, which implies the use case (browsing/filtering registered agents). However, it never states when to prefer this over other discovery tools or what happens when no filter is supplied, leaving usage to inference.

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