yaaif_agent_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only list operation and gives scope, but it does not mention pagination, defaults, result size, ordering, or any operational constraints. This is thin for a tool with three optional filtering parameters.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler and includes a useful scope qualifier. It is concise, though the terseness contributes to the lack of parameter and usage guidance.

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 tool with three undocumented optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine what q does, how limit behaves, what agent_type values are accepted, or what the response looks like.

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% and the description provides no meaning for q, limit, or agent_type. The parenthetical '(chat and workflow)' might relate to agent_type, but it does not explain the parameter. The description adds essentially nothing beyond the raw parameter names.

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 ('List') and resource ('agent definitions') with a clear tenant scope and the included types ('chat and workflow'). It is clear enough to distinguish from get/create/update agent tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling list tools such as yaaif_agent_spec_list.

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 guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over alternatives like yaaif_agent_get, yaaif_ambient_agent_list, or yaaif_agent_spec_list. The description only states what the tool does, not when to use it or when not to use it.

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