warden__list

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavior in stating that the result includes both a trust badge and a capability envelope, and that only 'verified' skills appear, which implies a filtering scope. It does not state result size, pagination, ordering, or whether verification is a prerequisite the caller must have satisfied.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the description of entry contents. The phrase 'capability envelope' is jargon that is not defined anywhere, which is the only real cost.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the gist but omits the return shape details an agent would want: entry fields beyond the two named, result volume, and ordering. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps given nothing else documents the output.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the listing is unfiltered and unscoped.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('every verified skill'), plus what each entry carries (trust badge, capability envelope). It stops short of distinguishing this from close siblings such as warden__knowledge or warden__trust, so an agent still has to infer which one surfaces the skill registry.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many warden__ siblings. The only implied usage is discovering available skills, which the agent must infer from the word 'List'.

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