List AxonHub requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries more weight. It discloses that request/response payloads are excluded and lists the metrics returned, but it does not cover pagination behavior, ordering, time window, authentication, or failure semantics.

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 short sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the action and returned fields, and the second adds an important exclusion. Every sentence earns its place.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a fair summary but omits practical details like pagination limits and what 'recent' means. The schema covers after/first, so this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 75%, and the schema already documents after, where, and projectId, while first has defaults and bounds. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 resource ('recent requests'), enumerates the returned fields (status, latency, executions, token usage, cost), and explicitly excludes payloads. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like axonhub_list_projects or axonhub_status.

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 wording implies the tool is for retrieving recent request metrics, and the 'payloads are excluded' note gives a useful boundary. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when to prefer sibling tools such as axonhub_usage or axonhub_graphql_query.

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