List custom agents from ~/.veto/agents/. Register a new agent by adding a .js file that exports plan(task, context?).
Lists all custom agents loaded from ~/.veto/agents/. Drop a .js file there that exports plan(task, context?) to register a new agent available in veto_agent_plan and veto_execute_parallel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.7.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, indicating a read-only operation. It adds value by specifying the directory path and registration mechanism, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations already imply.
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 with two sentences: the first states the core function, the second provides registration details. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.
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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations cover read-only behavior, the description fully explains what the tool does, where it looks, and how to extend it. It is complete for this purpose.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is not required to explain parameters. It adds context about the source directory and registration, which is sufficient. Baseline 4 for no parameters.
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 tool lists custom agents from a specific directory (~/.veto/agents/), using a specific verb 'Lists'. It distinguishes from siblings by linking the agents to specific tools (veto_agent_plan, veto_execute_parallel), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 clear context for when to use the tool (to list custom agents) and includes instructions for registering agents. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.