debug_list_agents

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns agents grouped by domain, which is a behavioral detail, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires an active connection, or whether it has side effects. For a read-like listing tool, this is a significant gap.

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 core description is concise: 'List all available agents from the server. Returns agents grouped by domain.' However, the opening sentence '[Arch Debug] Arch connects to live sessions...' is a generic blurb that does not add tool-specific value and could be trimmed. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded with the main action.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description tells what it does and the grouping behavior, but misses important context such as whether it is safe to call, whether it requires a connection, and what constitutes 'all available agents' (e.g., system vs user agents). Given the lack of annotations, this could be more complete.

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 already covers the single 'domain' parameter with 100% coverage and a description ('Filter by domain'). The tool description does not add any extra meaning about this parameter beyond what the schema provides. Given the full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'all available agents from the server', and adds that results are grouped by domain. It distinguishes from sibling tools like debug_list_active_sessions (sessions vs agents) and debug_get_current_state (state inspection). The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or when it should be preferred over sibling tools like debug_list_active_sessions or debug_get_current_state. The context line about 'Arch connects to live sessions...' is general and does not help decision-making.

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