list_analyses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that results are compact summaries rather than full records, which is useful. However, it remains quiet on ordering, pagination behavior, and the exact meaning of the limit parameter, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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, zero filler, and the core verb+resource+filter information is front-loaded. The added 'compact summary' detail is purposeful and 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 read-only list tool, the description covers the main invocation concerns: what it lists, the available filters, and the shape of the return (compact summaries). It does not address limit or ordering, but these are minor given the self-explanatory schema and default limit.

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 the description must compensate. It does meaningfully group component, verdict, and product as optional filters, but it omits limit entirely and does not clarify filter combination or matching semantics. Thus it only partially compensates for the bare schema.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource pair ('List stored analyses') and adds scope via optional filters. It also differentiates from siblings by promising 'a compact summary per record for browsing/dashboarding,' which contrasts with get_analysis likely returning full details.

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 a clear use context ('for browsing/dashboarding') and implies this is the list/browse counterpart to get_analysis. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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