covenant__list_covenants

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool lists covenants but does not mention pagination, default state filter, ordering, read-only nature, or any side effects. These are critical gaps for a listing tool.

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 concise (one sentence plus a prefixed domain hint) and front-loaded with the key action. The prefix in brackets is non-standard but adds context. No wasted words, though the prefix could be integrated more cleanly.

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 list tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and filter options. However, it lacks return format details (e.g., list of IDs, full objects), pagination behavior, and result limits, leaving an agent partially informed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds basic meaning by listing filterable fields (state with example values, agent_id) but does not specify agent_id format or whether state values are exhaustive. Partial improvement over schema alone.

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 the verb 'list', the resource 'covenants', and specifies optional filters by state (ACTIVE|REVOKED|EXPIRED) and agent. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like grant, revoke, or status, which involve different actions on covenants.

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 listing covenants with optional filters, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like covenant_status (for a single covenant) or when not to use it. No exclusions or context for selection are provided.

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