list_agent_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for a tool with zero parameters. It doesn't say whether this is a safe read, whether the list is paginated, whether it reflects session-local vs global registrations, or what happens when nothing is registered.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and scope lead and nothing is wasted.

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 zero-param, read-only discovery call with no output schema, the description conveys enough to invoke it correctly. It is only slightly thin on the semantics of what 'runtime-registered' and 'local agent' encompass.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; schema coverage is 100% by vacuity. Baseline 4 for a zero-param tool.

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 (list) and resource (runtime-registered agent tools) with clear scope ('available to the local agent'). It reads distinctly from sibling list_models/list_jobs, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with register_agent_tool/unregister_agent_tool, which cover the adjacent lifecycle.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative. The agent gets no signal about when discovering runtime tools is preferable to, say, reading a static list or calling register_agent_tool.

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