herdr_owned_worker_verification_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose that the operation is read-only and never returns command output. However, it leaves other behavioral aspects unclear, such as whether results are paginated, ordered, scoped globally, or what a 'content-free host verification record' actually contains.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the behavioral caveat is concise. Every clause 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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, this is serviceable but incomplete. It does not describe the return shape, record contents, filter interaction, or failure behavior, leaving an agent to infer several important details.

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 partially does by indicating records can be listed 'optionally for one controller or writer lease', which loosely maps to controller_id and lease_id. It does not explain whether the filters can be combined, which parameter corresponds to which role, or any constraints beyond the schema.

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 a specific operation: listing host verification records, with optional filtering by controller or writer lease. It distinguishes the tool from verification/verify siblings by emphasizing 'content-free' records and 'never returns command output', though it doesn't name any sibling explicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools like herdr_owned_worker_verification_snapshot or herdr_owned_worker_verify. No alternatives, exclusions, or contextual cues 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.