list_assessment_results_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, or side effects. It implies a safe list operation but lacks explicit disclosure of such traits.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief purpose statement, parameter descriptions, and return format in a few sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 description covers the return structure (Page_Response with keys) despite no output schema, and explains all three optional parameters. It could mention sorting or filtering, but overall it is reasonably complete for a list operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning: it explains parent_doc_uuid as optional UUID scoping, offset as zero-based pagination, and limit with range 1-100. This compensates for the schema gaps effectively.

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 explicitly states 'List result elements within OSCAL Assessment Results documents', clearly defining the verb (list) and resource (result elements). It also distinguishes from siblings like list_assessment_results (lists documents) and list_assessment_results_findings (lists findings).

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 provides context for when to use the tool (to list result elements) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or guide the agent to alternatives among siblings. It only mentions optional scoping via parent_doc_uuid, lacking clear usage boundaries.

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