specialist_list

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that, and it doesn't contradict them. It adds value by describing the response structure ({registry, specialists, total}) and the effect of include_permissions, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured sentences that front-load the primary action, give the data source, explain the optional parameter, and mention the return structure. No redundancy or filler; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the tool's output shape, read-only nature, and the alternative for single lookups. However, the unexplained app_id parameter, which is required, means an agent cannot correctly invoke the tool without further information. This prevents the description from being fully complete for effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It explains include_permissions clearly ('when include_permissions=true — each one's permission set'), but provides no explanation for app_id, which is a required parameter. An agent would not know what to pass for app_id, leaving a critical 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 clearly states the tool lists the specialist registry, enumerating agents the orchestrator can route work to, with role metadata and optionally permissions. It specifies the source file and the return shape, and explicitly contrasts with specialist_get, making its unique purpose unambiguous.

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?

It names the alternative specialist_get for a single agent's full row, giving a clear when-not-to-use pointer. However, it does not explicitly state general use cases (e.g., 'use this to discover available agents'), but the purpose is evident. The guidance is present but not exhaustive.

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