List ASM assessment history IDs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds the 'from history' qualifier, useful context but not extensive. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but this is a simple param-less list, so no contradiction.

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, concise sentence that communicates the essential purpose without any filler. It is front-loaded with the action verb and resource, making it highly efficient.

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 param-less read-only list tool, the description is mostly complete: it states the output (list of ASM assessment IDs) and the source (history). It lacks details like whether IDs are sorted or paginated, but the low complexity and strong annotations make the description adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed given the empty input 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 the verb 'Get', the resource 'ASM assessment IDs', and the source 'history', which precisely defines the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings like cymulate_asm_get_latest_findings and cymulate_bas_list_history_ids by specifying ASM and history IDs.

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 usage: when you need history IDs for ASM assessments. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as using cymulate_asm_get_latest_findings for the latest assessment IDs.

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