查看执行回执

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature, so the description carries a lower burden. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the literal action—no mention of ordering, pagination, result limits, or what constitutes an execution receipt. The description is essentially a restatement of the title without new behavioral insights.

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, direct sentence with no redundancy or fluff. It front-loads the core purpose. While it could be expanded with useful details, it remains appropriately concise for its simplicity, though it risks being too sparse to be fully helpful.

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 no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what an execution receipt is, what the response format looks like, how pagination works, or any sorting/filtering nuances. An agent calling this tool would lack critical context about the returned data and how to interpret it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly hints that project_id is required and task_id is optional (by saying 'project or specified task'), but it provides no details about the limit parameter, its default, or how it affects results. The description adds minimal meaning beyond what the schema's property names already convey.

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 action (list execution receipts) and the scope (project or specific task). It distinguishes from siblings like evidence_list and receipt_attach by naming the resource type, so an agent can infer its purpose without confusion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools, missing a chance to reinforce its unique focus.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools. An agent has to infer that this is the go-to for listing receipts, which is not always obvious.

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