List assessments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the auth scope requirement (assessments:read) and implies a lightweight payload via 'summaries', but says nothing about pagination, filtering, or result volume.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and scope front-loaded. Every clause 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?

No output schema exists, so the description should carry more of the return-value burden; 'assessment summaries' hints at shape but omits pagination, ordering, or result limits. For a simple one-parameter read tool this is adequate but with clear gaps.

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% for the single projectPid parameter, but the description's phrase 'for a project' implies the parameter identifies the target project. It adds no format or naming details (e.g., PID vs. numeric ID) beyond that implication.

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+resource ('List assessment summaries') and scopes it to a project, which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings like air_get_assessment_summary or air_get_assessment, so an agent must infer the distinction from names alone.

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 names a required permission ('Requires assessments:read'), which is a useful prerequisite, but gives no guidance on when to choose this over air_get_assessment_summary, air_get_assessment, or air_get_assessment_report. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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