list_checks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Retrieve') but does not explicitly state safety, permissions, or side effects. The return structure is documented, but behavioral traits like rate limits or prerequisites are missing.

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 structured using Args/Returns format, which is clear but slightly verbose. It is not overly long, but could be more concise for a simple single-parameter tool.

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 has one parameter and an output schema (implied by the Returns section), the description covers the essential inputs and outputs. It could mention prerequisites like the asset existing, but overall it is fairly complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds critical meaning: 'assetId (str): Asset id (plan id).' This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the bare schema type, compensating well for the lack of annotation.

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 'Retrieve all checks associated with an asset' with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly mentions the sole required parameter 'assetId' and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'fetch_checks' by focusing on checks for a single asset.

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 alternatives. It lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mentions of sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context without support.

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