eval.listResults

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond the bare operation. It omits that results are paginated/limited (limit defaults to 50), the ordering of results, or whether there is a cap on returned items.

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 verb and filter front-loaded and no filler. It is tight, though brevity here comes at the cost of missing detail rather than being earned by completeness.

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 listing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented limit parameter, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell how many results to expect or how pagination behaves.

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 0%, so both parameters rely on the description. Only eval_case_id is implicitly covered; 'limit' and its default of 50 are never mentioned, leaving the truncation behavior unexplained.

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 (past eval results) with a scope qualifier. It is reasonably distinguishable from eval.listCases and eval.run, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by eval_case_id' hints at one usage mode but never states when to call this versus eval.listCases, eval.run, or eval.createCase. No prerequisites or when-not guidance is given.

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