ghl_agent_studio_list_deprecated

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true. The description adds significant behavioral context: it lists only agents with published production versions, requires locationId, supports pagination with limit/offset, specifies the endpoint URL, OAuth scopes, and version header. No contradiction 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 is somewhat redundant with repeated deprecation notices and multiple endpoint references. It is front-loaded with the key message but could be more streamlined.

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 exists, and the description does not explain the return format. For a deprecated tool, the provided endpoint, OAuth scopes, and pagination details are adequate, but the lack of output description limits completeness.

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. It clarifies locationId as required and explains limit/offset for pagination. However, the 'source' parameter is not described, and parameter details are brief. It adds some meaning but not full clarity for all parameters.

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 active agents with a published production version and explicitly identifies it as deprecated with a direct reference to the replacement (ghl_agent_studio_list). This distinguishes it from siblings effectively.

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 explicitly advises using the replacement tool and provides the new endpoint. It mentions required parameters (locationId) and pagination. However, it lacks explicit guidance on scenarios where using this deprecated tool might still be necessary, though the deprecation message implies avoidance.

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