list_trusted

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns up to 25 results sorted by trust score. However, it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. A score of 3 is appropriate as it adds some context that is missing from annotations.

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 sentences, clear and front-loaded. No redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 the complexity of 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides essential context but still leaves gaps (e.g., what 'trust score' represents, behavior of 'required_badges'). It is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 25% (only 'category' has a description). The description adds clarity by stating that 'category' can be omitted for all, and implicitly relates 'min_overall' to the 'minimum trust threshold'. However, it does not explain 'required_badges' or 'limit' beyond the schema defaults. With low coverage, a 3 is reasonable.

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 specifies the action ('search'), the resource ('AgentForge catalog'), and the scope ('servers matching a category and minimum trust threshold'). It also adds valuable context about the result set (max 25, sorted by trust score). This fully distinguishes it from siblings.

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 implies usage for finding servers by category and trust threshold, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or contrast with sibling tools.

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