inforcer_assessments_list

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'Read-only' simply reinforces that. The description adds a small behavioral/purpose hint ('available to run') but does not go beyond what annotations already establish.

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 short, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes a useful parenthetical purpose. The 'Read-only' sentence is somewhat redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation but harmless and reinforces the safety profile.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description conveys what is listed, why to use it, and that it is safe. It does not describe the exact output format, but the mention of discovering assessment IDs gives the agent enough expectation for a simple listing call.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation gap for the description to fill. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none exists, so the baseline applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('assessments available to run'), and explicitly states the practical purpose: discovering assessment IDs. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like inforcer_assessments_run, which would execute rather than list.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: before running assessments, to discover assessment IDs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but for a zero-parameter list operation the intended placement in the workflow is evident.

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