rca_analysis_list_results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior: results are ordered newest-first, only IDs and counts are returned, pagination works via limit/offset, and the response has a specific JSON shape. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary, then compactly structured Args and Returns sections. It is spare and readable. It loses a point because the Args section is incomplete and partially duplicates schema-provided default information.

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 read-only paginated list tool, this description covers purpose, ordering, pagination, return shape, and follow-up behavior. The response format is described explicitly, and the annotations handle safety. Missing explicit token/client_id guidance is the main gap, though the schema covers those fields, so the description is still largely complete.

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 description adds useful semantics for limit and offset, including bounds, default, and how offset pages past limit. However, it omits token and client_id from the Args section, and with the schema description coverage signal at 0% for the top-level params object, the description does not fully compensate for those missing parameters. The nested schema descriptions cover them, but the tool description itself leaves the agent to discover them.

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'), identifies the resource ('stored RCA result IDs'), and specifies ordering ('newest first') and pagination. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from rca_analysis_get_result by stating that it returns IDs and a count only, not the full results.

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 clearly tells the agent when to use this tool: to list all stored result IDs with pagination. It also directs follow-up to rca_analysis_get_result for full content. However, it does not explicitly contrast with rca_analysis_query_results for filtered/search use cases, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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