yaaif_ambient_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 only says 'List', which implies a read-only operation, but does not state whether this is safe, what the return format is, whether pagination exists, or any side effects. No additional behavioral context is offered beyond the bare action.

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 short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is too terse and omits essential information about parameters and behavior, making it under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It earns a middle score because it wastes no words but lacks substance.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain how to use the q or limit parameters, what the default behavior is, or what the response contains. Even for a simple list operation, an agent would need at least basic guidance on parameter usage and expected output, which is entirely missing.

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 schema defines two optional parameters (q and limit) with no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention these parameters at all, nor does it explain their meaning, defaults, or how they affect results. This is a complete failure to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action (List), the resource (ambient agent configs), and the scope (in the tenant). This is specific and easily distinguished from sibling tools like yaaif_agent_list (which lists regular agents) and yaaif_ambient_agent_get (which retrieves a single config). The verb-resource pairing is 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or context. It does not mention that this is for ambient agent configs specifically versus other list tools, nor does it suggest alternatives. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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