human_attestation_list

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

Beyond the read-only annotation, the description adds sorting order ('newest first') and filter options, giving useful behavioral details. It does not mention return format or error handling, but these are not critical for a read-only list operation.

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?

One concise sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose and key options without redundancy. Well-structured and easy to parse.

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 annotations (read-only) and schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling list tools, but the context of 'attestation records' is clear. The missing app_id/limit semantics slightly detract, but overall enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 description explicitly explains the filtering behavior for subject_id, subject_type, and status, but does not clarify the semantics of app_id (required) or limit (pagination). Since the schema provides no descriptions, there is a gap for these two 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?

Clearly states the action (list), the resource (attestation records), and optional filters. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like human_attestation_create (creation) and human_required_list (different resource type).

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?

Implicitly indicates when to use (for listing attestations) but does not explicitly contrast with alternative list tools. However, the descriptive filters and 'newest first' orientation provide enough guidance for typical usage.

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