Corridas anteriores

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the ordering behavior (most recent to oldest), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about result caps, default page size, or whether all runs or only a bounded window are returned.

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 front-loaded sentence with the ordering detail included; nothing is wasted. It is short but that fits a simple list 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?

For a one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and sort order. It is still incomplete regarding the limit parameter's behavior and the shape/size of the returned list, which matter for correct invocation.

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% and the single 'limit' parameter is never mentioned in the description. The agent gets no explanation of what limit does, its default, or that it is capped at 100 – the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Lista') and resource ('corridas de escaneo guardadas'), which is enough to distinguish it from write-oriented siblings like scan_* or runs_diff. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with runs_diff, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as runs_diff or findings_query, nor any mention of prerequisites or how to page through history. The only implicit signal is 'guardadas', which suggests browsing previously stored runs.

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