github_code_scanning_list_recent_analyses

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. While the description implies a read-only list operation, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or what side effects (if any) exist. The minimal description adds no additional context beyond the obvious, resulting in an average score.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. However, it could benefit from an additional sentence to explain the purpose of 'recent' or to differentiate from other list tools, but it remains efficient and front-loaded.

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's complexity (11 parameters, multiple filters, many sibling tools) and lack of output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'analyses' are, how they relate to alerts, or how to use filters like `tool_name` vs `tool_guid`. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to interpret 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds no additional information about parameters, so it does not augment the schema. 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'code scanning analyses for a repository'. It is specific enough to convey the basic action, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like `github_code_scanning_list_alerts_for_repo` or `github_code_scanning_list_alert_instances`, which could cause confusion.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it specify any prerequisites or context (e.g., 'Use to view analysis results, not alerts'). The absence of guidance forces the agent to infer from the tool name and parameters.

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