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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add context, and it does: results are ordered most recent first, only the caller's own runs are shown (not other users' activity), and each row carries attackId and status. It does not state a retention window or whether results are paginated beyond the limit parameter, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope before the recovery use case and the follow-on tools. The closing sentence slightly restates 'your own runs' from the opening, which is the only redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does name attackId and status plus the ordering. It leaves open whether scenario runs include scenario IDs or execution state beyond status, a minor gap for a three-parameter read tool whose safety profile is covered by annotations.

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 67%: limit and account_no are already documented in the schema, and cloud_service is a self-explanatory enum. The description only reinforces that results are scoped to one cloud account and emphasizes 'most recent first', which matches the limit description rather than adding new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list recent attack and scenario runs), the scope (own runs only, for a given cloud account), the ordering (most recent first) and the returned fields (attackId, status). That is enough for an agent to tell it apart from list_attacks and list_scenarios without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions: recovering an attackId when a launch_attack/launch_scenario call dropped before returning, or checking whether a long-running scenario is still running or has failed. It also routes the agent forward by naming get_attack_status, get_attack_evidence and clean_up_attack as the consumers of the recovered attackId.

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