zap_scan_history_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the description adds the included entry types. However, it does not disclose default ordering, pagination, limit behavior, or output shape, which would be useful given no output schema.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds useful information: the verb, the resource, and the specific entry categories.

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 schema fully covers parameters, and the operation is simple with no required inputs. However, the absence of an output schema and annotations, plus no mention of how this list relates to the sibling get/export tools, leaves some context gaps for an agent deciding whether this tool is sufficient.

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 the parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds little beyond the 'recent' context and the general categories, which does not substantially improve parameter understanding.

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') and resource ('recent scan history and release-evidence entries'), and enumerates concrete included categories. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like zap_scan_history_get or zap_scan_history_export without needing to open the schema.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a recent list of scan history and evidence entries is needed. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over zap_scan_history_get, zap_scan_history_export, or zap_scan_history_release_evidence, nor any exclusions.

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