List launched EV assessments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which covers the safety profile. However, the description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the name: no mention of pagination, filtering via query, response format, or any quirks. It essentially restates the title.

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 unnecessary words. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 a nested query object, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is under-specified. It lacks information about how to filter results (query object), what fields are returned, or any limits. It is minimally viable but leaves clear gaps.

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 one parameter ('query') with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention it at all, leaving the agent without any understanding of how to construct or use the query object. This is a major gap.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('launched Exposure Validation assessments'). The word 'all' signals a collection operation, distinguishing it from single-item tools like cymulate_ev_launched_get, but it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling list tools (e.g., scheduled vs. launched, templates vs. assessments). The optional 'query' parameter is not mentioned, so the agent gets no hints on filtering or intended use cases.

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