list_certified_servers

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

The description tells that it lists items with specific attributes, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden but lacks detail.

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 a single sentence of 13 words that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb 'List' and contains no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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's simplicity (list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema), the description covers the basic intent and returned data ('level and expiry'). However, it omits details about the 'limit' parameter's behavior and the exact format of the output, leaving gaps for the agent to infer.

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 input schema has one parameter 'limit' with type 'number' but no description. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, failing to explain its purpose (e.g., maximum number of results). With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not.

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' and the resource 'MCP servers in the local certification registry', and specifies the returned information ('level and expiry'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'certify_server' and 'verify_certification' by indicating it is a listing operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'trust_registry_list', which may be a similar listing tool.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely implies usage for listing certified servers. There is no mention of when not to use it or what prerequisites (e.g., having a certification registry) are needed.

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