ecosystem_scan_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states that runs are filtered by 'recent' and ordered by started_at descending, but fails to disclose permissions, rate limits, side effects, or the scope (e.g., project-specific vs global).

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 a single sentence that conveys the essence without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action and object.

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?

The tool is simple with only two optional parameters and a provided output schema. The description covers the core functionality (listing recent runs by date). Minor gap: it doesn't specify the source of 'scan runs' (e.g., across all projects), but this is acceptable for a list tool.

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 100%, with both parameters already well-described. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema for limit and strategy. Baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recent scan runs') with ordering. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ecosystem_scan (which triggers scans) and ecosystem_scan_status (which provides current status).

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 implies usage for viewing historical scan runs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ecosystem_scan_status or ecosystem_scan. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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