list_confirmations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that results are paginated, supports status and HITL config filtering, requires a Proof account, and requires the PROOF_API_KEY environment variable before use. This meaningfully explains access behavior and avoids a dead-end auth flow.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. The access note is separate and clearly actionable, with no redundant or filler content.

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 operation with four optional parameters, the description covers the purpose, pagination, filters, and access requirements. It does not describe default page/limit values or the exact return shape, but the absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the clear 'paginated results' statement and the fully documented parameters.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description's mention of 'status and HITL config filtering' restates what the schema enum and hitl_id description already cover, adding no new parameter-level semantics. Baseline 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 opens with 'List confirmations with optional filters', which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and operation. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_confirmation by using 'list' and by explicitly mentioning pagination and filtering.

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 states when to use the tool: to list confirmations with optional filters. It also provides important exclusionary guidance: 'start_login does NOT open this tool', preventing the agent from attempting an authentication flow that will not grant access. It does not explicitly recommend alternatives like get_confirmation for single-resource lookup, but the list-versus-get distinction is clear.

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