list_asset_executions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format, the behavior of the optional filter, and shows examples. Missing details like pagination or performance are not critical for a list operation, and no side effects are implied. The description is transparent enough for safe invocation.

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 well-structured with a summary, Args, Returns, and Example sections. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the content is front-loaded with the primary purpose. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's purpose, all parameters, the return shape, and provides concrete examples. Even though an output schema exists, the description's return-field enumeration adds clarity. Combined with two parameters and no nested objects, this is a complete package.

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 schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully explains both parameters in the Args section, including the meaning of asset_rid, the valid values for asset_role, and that omission returns all. This adds significant semantic value beyond the bare 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 clearly states 'List all executions associated with an asset' with a specific verb and resource. It further elaborates on provenance tracking, distinguishing this as a read-only listing tool for asset-execution relationships. Sibling tools like list_tasks or list_nested_executions serve different purposes, so there's no ambiguity.

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 a clear use case ('useful for provenance tracking') and explains how the optional asset_role filter changes the query. It does not explicitly call out when not to use this tool or name alternative sibling tools, but the context is sufficient for most agents.

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