List agents Beam can hook into

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only, runs entirely locally', which is critical safety and execution context. It also explains that it reports installability and verification status, providing insight beyond a simple list. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention potential side effects (like hook configuration changes), but given it's read-only, this is adequately covered.

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 two sentences long, with the core action front-loaded ('List the coding agents...') followed by specific details about the output content. Every word adds value—no filler or redundant phrasing. It is efficiently structured for quick comprehension.

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-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the purpose (list agents), the output contents (installability, verification status), examples of agents, and safety characteristics (read-only, local). Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to call it.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and the empty schema provides 100% coverage. Since there are no parameters to document, the description need not add any parameter details. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately does not attempt to explain parameters that don't exist.

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), resource (coding agents Beam supports), and gives concrete examples (claude-code, codex, cursor). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like beam_scan_content and beam_scan_path, which focus on scanning rather than agent enumeration. The purpose is unambiguous and separable from its siblings.

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 clearly indicates what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. The usage context is implied (e.g., an agent wanting to know which coding agents are supported), but no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided. This falls short of explicit guidance.

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