get_r_report_queries_asset_ports_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that this is a GET (read-style) operation, which is useful, but it says nothing about authentication requirements, response behavior, pagination semantics, error cases, or side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short and front-loads the action and endpoint. It contains no fluff, and every sentence adds some information. It is slightly awkward grammatically ('Retrieve records Calls...'), but this is a minor issue.

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 the generic schema, no annotations, and a large sibling set, the description leaves important gaps: it does not specify which path parameters are valid, which query filters or pagination parameters exist, or which headers may be required. The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is less critical, but the call-construction details are under-specified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning by mapping parameters to roles: route IDs in path_params, filters/pagination in query, and headers in headers. However, it does not name actual route IDs, query parameters, or required header values, and it ignores the body parameter entirely.

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 states a specific action ('Retrieve records') and the exact endpoint ('GET /r/report_queries/asset_ports_view'), making the resource clear from the URL. However, it does not explain what 'asset_ports_view' represents or distinguish this from closely related sibling tools like get_r_report_queries_ports_view or get_r_asset_asset_ports.

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 gives invocation mechanics ('Provide route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query...') but never states when to use this tool versus the many alternative report-query tools. There is no context about intended use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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