grove_agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the permission requirement ('Requires grove_read'), the sort order, and the computed age_secs field in each entry. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the core action and permission, the entry format, and the intended use case. The primary behavior is front-loaded and there is zero filler.

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?

With an output schema present and safety annotations in place, the description covers purpose, sort order, permission, return-entry shape, and recommended usage context. The only material omission is the semantics of app_id, which leaves the definition slightly incomplete for a tool that accepts a parameter.

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 description coverage is 0% — the sole parameter app_id has no schema-level explanation — and the description never mentions app_id either. For an optional parameter with a default this is not catastrophic, but the description fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving an agent unsure whether app_id filters the result set or scopes the fleet query.

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 fleet agents') plus a distinguishing sort criterion ('by most-recent HEARTBEAT, newest first'). It also names the required permission and the exact shape of each entry, which clearly differentiates it from siblings like grove_fleet_status, fleet_status, and fleet_health that presumably summarize rather than enumerate per-agent heartbeat data.

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 closing sentence gives explicit context for when to call this tool: 'Use this to see who is currently alive in the fleet before addressing or coordinating with them.' This is a clear when-to-use directive, though it does not name alternatives explicitly or state when NOT to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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