cyntrisec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that filtering is optional and lists parameters, but doesn't describe important behaviors like pagination (implied by 'max_assets'), rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what 'latest' means for 'snapshot_id'. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by an 'Args' section with bullet-point-like formatting for parameters, and ends with a 'Returns' section. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise. No redundant information is present.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and documents parameters, but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and context about the scan environment. For a data retrieval tool in a security/scanning context, more guidance on typical use cases would be helpful.

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 adds meaningful context for all 4 parameters: 'asset_type' with examples, 'search' with scope and case-insensitivity, 'max_assets' with default value, and 'snapshot_id' with default behavior. However, it doesn't fully explain parameter interactions or constraints (e.g., if 'search' and 'asset_type' can be combined). The baseline is 3 since it covers all parameters but with moderate depth.

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's purpose: 'Get assets from the scan with optional filtering.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('assets from the scan'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_findings' or 'get_relationships', which likely retrieve different types of data from the same scan context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't specify scenarios where filtering is needed or when other tools like 'get_findings' might be more appropriate. There's no mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or exclusions for usage.

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