List covenants, optionally filtered by state (ACTIVE|REVOKED|EXPIRED) and/or the bound agent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No | ||
| agent_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It only hints at listing but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, permissions, or whether all covenants are returned. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
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?
Single sentence with front-loaded purpose ('List covenants'). No fluff or redundancy.
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 two simple optional parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, leaving gaps for agent decision-making.
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 description partially explains the 'state' parameter with enum values but does not describe 'agent_id' semantics. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate more.
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 covenants and specifies optional filters by state and agent. It is distinct from sibling tools like covenant_status (which likely returns a single covenant) and grant/revoke mutations.
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?
No guidance on when to use list_covenants versus alternatives like covenant_status or check_act. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: granting, revoking, checking, listing, status, auditing, and self-description. No two tools overlap in function.
Most tools follow verb_noun pattern (e.g., grant_covenant, check_act), but covenant_status uses noun_noun, a minor inconsistency.
Seven tools cover the covenant lifecycle without bloat, fitting well within the 3-15 optimal range.
Core operations (grant, revoke, check, list, status, audit) are covered. Missing a dedicated tool to view a single covenant's details, but list_covenants and covenant_status likely suffice.