trust_list

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 states the core behavior (listing all agents with trust scores) and mentions pagination, but it does not disclose return format, sorting, or whether pagination is offset-based. The description is not misleading but leaves some behavioral details unspecified.

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 one short sentence that states purpose and pagination support. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant detail beyond a useful clarification.

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 list tool with low parameter count and full schema coverage, the description covers the purpose and behavior adequately. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the clear mention of what is returned (agents with trust scores). It does not need to list every pagination detail because the schema provides that.

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 input schema already documents both parameters (page and limit) with descriptions, and schema coverage is 100%. The description only repeats the pagination concept without adding new meaning, so it stays at the baseline.

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 action (List) and resource (all registered agents with their trust scores), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools trust_lookup, trust_register, and trust_review. It immediately signals this is the 'list all' operation among the trust-related tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'List' and the resource scope, and the pagination note offers some context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over trust_lookup or any exclusions or prerequisites.

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