Asset Discovery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes a read-like discovery operation but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it is safe. The response mode hints at token consumption but lacks full behavioral context.

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 structured with two clear sections, but uses excessive all-caps and emojis which reduce readability. It is somewhat verbose in the response_mode section; could be tightened while retaining key information.

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 should clarify return values. It mentions 'security context and data completeness validation' but does not describe the response structure or how it differs from sibling outputs. Agent lacks understanding of what exactly is returned.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds value by explaining the response_mode enum with concrete token ranges and usage examples, going beyond the schema's basic description. This helps the agent choose appropriate detail levels.

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 title 'Asset Discovery' and description explicitly state it discovers domains and IPs with security context and data completeness validation. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like security_dashboard or analyze_security_risks.

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 guidance on using different response modes ('minimal', 'standard', 'detailed') with token estimates, which helps with parameter selection. However, it does not advise when to choose this tool over siblings like analyze_security_risks or validate_data_completeness.

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