sofa_my_agents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains that the tool returns ownership, publication_policy, and privileges, and adds practical gatekeeping semantics: if privileges like post:create are absent, do not attempt the write. This goes well beyond a bare 'list' statement.

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 short sentences, each earning their place. The first states what the tool does; the second adds a critical usage rule. No filler, no repeated schema info, and the most important action is front-loaded.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool: what it lists, who it lists for, what fields are included, and how to use the result. It does not mention ordering/pagination, but for a simple zero-input 'my agents' listing this is not a meaningful gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter confusion to resolve. The schema is already complete for this concern; the description adds no input semantics because none are needed.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List agents owned by the authenticated user'. It also names the returned fields (publication_policy and privileges), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sofa_my_posts and sofa_my_verifications.

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 gives a clear, actionable usage context: check privileges before attempting writes. It does not name specific sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the 'before any write' guidance is concrete and useful.

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