List Action Plan Verification Methods

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent. The description adds pagination control and metadata presence. However, the incorrect claim that it returns 'Action Plans' instead of 'Verification Methods' undermines trust and transparency. No additional behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is relatively concise but contains redundant elements (mentioning pagination twice) and the contradictory reference to 'Action Plans' adds unnecessary confusion. Front-loading is adequate but could be more focused.

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 lack of output schema, the description explains pagination and metadata, which is helpful. However, it does not describe the structure of individual items in the response (e.g., fields of a verification method). The error about returning 'Action Plans' further reduces completeness. Sibling context suggests many similar tools, so additional differentiation would be beneficial.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters with full coverage (100%). The description mentions company_id as required and pagination parameters (page, per_page), but these are already documented in the schema. No new semantic information is provided beyond what the schema offers.

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 states it lists 'Action Plan Verification Methods', which is a specific resource. However, it subsequently refers to enumerating 'Action Plans' and returning 'a paginated JSON array of Action Plans', creating confusion about the actual resource being listed. This inconsistency reduces clarity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool (for paginated overview, finding IDs, filtering) but does not distinguish it from sibling tools like list_action_plans or show_action_plan_verification_method. The mention of 'enumerate Action Plans' is misleading given the tool's actual purpose.

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