air_list_assessments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it lists 'summaries' (not full assessments) and requires 'assessments:read' permission. This adds some context beyond annotations, but doesn't detail return format or pagination behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence immediately states the core action. Every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to describe the parameter or provide details about the return structure (assessment summaries). Annotations cover safety but behavioral details are sparse.

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 schema has one required parameter (projectPid) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention or explain it. The name 'projectPid' is self-explanatory as a project ID, but the description provides zero parameter guidance. Given 0% coverage and no additional info, the score is minimal.

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?

Clearly states it lists assessment summaries for a project. The verb 'list' and resource 'assessment summaries' are specific. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like air_get_assessment (which gets a single assessment) or other list tools, but the context of 'assessment summaries' provides distinction.

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?

Provides a permission requirement ('Requires assessments:read') but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like air_get_assessment or air_list_assessment_stages. No explicit when-not-to-use or context hints.

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