zunivo_list_agents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the outcome (list of .agent names) and the inclusion criterion (published a callable service). However, it does not disclose potential behavioral aspects like ordering, pagination, or authentication requirements, which would enhance transparency.

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 redundant information. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and structured.

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 simple 0-parameter enumeration tool, the description covers purpose, scope, and location. The absence of an output schema is not a significant gap because the return format (a list of names) is intuitively clear. The description is complete for correct invocation.

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, and the schema is fully covered. The description adds context about what the list contains, but since there are no parameters, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every .agent name that has published a callable service'), clearly distinguishing this listing tool from sibling tools like zunivo_resolve_agent or zunivo_paid_fetch. The scope (public agent directory on Arc) is explicit.

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 clear context (public agent directory) that implies when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. The context is sufficient for an agent to infer the primary use case, but lacks overt when-not guidance.

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