list_assessment_results_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states that results are paged and what summary fields are returned, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or describe permission/auth requirements.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a useful detail-retrieval pointer and paging note.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately mentions the returned summary fields and paging behavior. Given the simple three-parameter list operation and complete schema coverage, this is sufficient, though it could say more about scope defaults.

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 100%, so limit, offset, and parent_doc_uuid are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the general note that results are paged, not parameter-specific semantics beyond the 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 uses a specific verb and resource: list results within loaded OSCAL Assessment Results, and it names the fields returned. It does not explicitly differentiate this from siblings such as list_assessment_results or query_assessment_results, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It points to get_child_element for retrieving a result's OSCAL JSON and notes that results are paged. However, it does not say when to use this tool instead of list_assessment_results or query_assessment_results, leaving the choice largely implied.

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