ghl_agent_studio_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and no destructiveness. The description reinforces this by noting it lists active agents and requires locationId, and mentions OAuth scopes (agent-studio.readonly). No contradictions with 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?

The description has some redundancy (e.g., repeats 'List Agents' from the title) but is front-loaded with key facts. Could be more concise by integrating the title line into the first sentence.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the agent must infer the return shape. The description covers input parameters and pagination but lacks details about the response format, which is important for a list operation.

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 only 20% (only isPublished has a description). The description explains limit, offset for pagination and locationId as required, but does not explain the 'source' parameter. It adds some meaning but not comprehensive.

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 'Lists agents (paginated via limit/offset)' and distinguishes from a get-by-id lookup. It specifies the resource (agents) and the action (list), differentiating it from siblings like ghl_agent_studio_get_by_id.

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 explicitly states locationId is required for optimal performance and supports pagination. It also notes it's not a get-by-id lookup, guiding users away from using it for single agent retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use alternatives like get_by_id for specific lookups.

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