list_analyses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context by mentioning pagination and the limit default/max, but it does not disclose ordering, what happens when no status filter is provided, or other behavioral traits. This is adequate but not rich, consistent with the calibration example for similar read-only list tools.

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 two sentences plus a parameter list. It front-loads the purpose and then concisely details each argument without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence 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?

The tool has a simple operation with three optional params and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain the return format. It covers the purpose, pagination, and parameter constraints. However, it does not specify default behavior when no status filter is provided (presumably all statuses) or any ordering, which would make it slightly more complete. Given the simplicity and presence of output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in the schema), and the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: status with allowed enum values, cursor as a pagination token from previous calls, and limit with default (20) and max (100). This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw type declarations.

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 clearly states 'List analysis tasks with pagination', identifying the verb (list), resource (analysis tasks), and key behavior (pagination). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_analysis_status (single status), start_analysis (creation), and cancel/delete/result (different operations).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. Usage is implied by the name and the parameter details (e.g., 'cursor from a previous list call' suggests iterative use), but there is no explicit 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance.

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