List previous results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the ordering guarantee ('newest first') and the storage location ('results folder'), which is useful context, but says nothing about pagination limits or what happens when no results exist.

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?

A single, efficient sentence with the resource and ordering front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing extraneous.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully covers both optional parameters. For a simple read-only list tool this is nearly complete; only minor behavioral detail (pagination beyond limit, empty-folder behavior) is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters ('tool' filter and 'limit') are fully documented in the schema. The description's 'newest first' echoes the limit parameter's own description, adding no new semantic detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List') and resource ('previous Audial results') plus the scope ('in the results folder') and ordering ('newest first'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling generation tools, though it does not name any of them 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?

Usage is implied by 'previous results' — an agent can infer this is the tool for retrieving already-produced outputs rather than creating new ones. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives for finding results.

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