List site audits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail — that this reads already-saved history rather than triggering a crawl — but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result size.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the scoping information is front-loaded. Nothing is redundant.

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?

For a one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the definition is minimally viable: annotations cover safety and the schema covers the only parameter. It is still missing how results are returned (pagination, ordering, count), which an agent needs to consume a list endpoint 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single project_id parameter (with its pattern and the note that membership and token scopes are enforced) is already fully documented. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('saved bounded crawl history') scoped to 'this project', so the agent can tell it is a retrieval tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close siblings get_site_audit and run_site_audit, and it never uses the word 'audit' itself, so the link to 'site audits' relies on the title.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no precondition, and no mention of alternatives such as get_site_audit (single fetch) or run_site_audit (creates a new crawl). The agent must infer that this lists existing audits rather than running one.

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