list_assessment_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the cursor-pagination behavior and that results are 'completed', implying read-only access. It does not mention potential side effects, but for a list operation the risk is low and the pagination behavior is a key behavioral detail.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The purpose is stated first, followed by the single most important usage note about pagination. Highly concise and front-loaded.

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 simple list tool with cursor pagination, the description is sufficient. It explains the pagination flow and implies the resource. There is no output schema, so return format isn't required. It could mention what 'completed' means, but that's business logic and likely implied by the context.

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 67% (cursor and page_size have descriptions, slug does not). The description adds usage context for the cursor parameter ('Use next_cursor') but does not explain slug beyond what the schema implies (the assessment identifier). The schema already covers pagination details, so the description adds marginal value over the 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 tool lists completed results for an assessment and mentions cursor-based pagination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_assessments (which lists assessments themselves) and get_assessment (which fetches a single assessment).

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 instruction to use next_cursor for pagination, which is a concrete usage guideline. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but the purpose is straightforward enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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