List past scans

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/local-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the on-disk storage path (~/.webability/scans) and the crucial caveat that the hosted server keeps no history, which materially affects expectations. It does not describe pagination or ordering beyond the default list behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then progressively adds scope, storage caveat, and parameter behavior. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; no filler or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by stating what the default list returns (when, target, result summary) and what `id` returns (full stored result). Combined with the storage-location caveat, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by emphasizing that `id` returns the FULL stored result (not just a summary row) and that `filter` matches URL or tool substring. It adds real semantic shading beyond the schema, though it doesn't restate the `limit` default.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (browse past scans) and immediately scopes it by naming the exact sibling tools whose calls get logged (scan_page, flow_scan, scan_html, visual_audit, check_aria, verify_fix). An agent can distinguish this history/retrieval tool from the scan-execution siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear mode-based guidance: no arguments lists recent scans, pass `id` for a full stored result, pass `filter` for substring matching. It does not name competing siblings (e.g. diff_scan, get_audit) or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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