vtimestamp_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('array of timestamps with hash, title, metadata, and blockchain proof details'), which is helpful, but fails to address critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently state the action and return value. There is no wasted text, but it could be slightly improved by integrating usage context or sibling differentiation without sacrificing brevity.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return format, but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and error handling. For a simple list tool, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement in completeness.

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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single required parameter 'identity' as a VerusID name. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid formats beyond 'alice@' or edge cases. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('timestamps recorded on a VerusID'), and it distinguishes the scope by mentioning 'all timestamps'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'vtimestamp_info' or 'vtimestamp_verify', which might provide more detailed or verification-focused functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings ('vtimestamp_info' and 'vtimestamp_verify'). It lacks context on prerequisites, such as whether the VerusID must exist or be accessible, and offers no explicit alternatives or exclusions for usage.

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