list_assessments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behaviors: default status (all) and cursor-based pagination. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'list'), nor does it describe the response shape or potential side effects. It provides some transparency but is not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key behaviors. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately concise for a simple list tool.

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 list tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the default status and pagination but omits search semantics, status value constraints, and what the response contains. Given the low complexity, it is minimally sufficient but leaves notable gaps that an agent would need to infer or discover elsewhere.

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 50% (cursor and page_size are documented, search and status are not). The description adds meaning for status ('all statuses by default') and cursor ('cursor-paginated'), which partially compensates for the schema gaps. However, it does not explain the 'search' parameter at all, leaving it ambiguous. The added value is moderate but incomplete.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List assessments for the organisation'. It also gives scope (organisation) and distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_assessment_cases and list_assessment_results by specifying it lists assessments themselves, not cases or results. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 some usage hints (all statuses by default, cursor-paginated) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or conditions that would route an agent to a sibling tool such as list_assessment_cases. The guidance is implicit at best.

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