get_r_report_queries_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It only says 'Retrieve assets,' which is a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral details such as pagination limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if no filters are provided. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the endpoint.

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 to the point, with no redundant filler. It front-loads the main action and then lists the parameter categories. However, it could be more useful if it elaborated on the purpose without becoming verbose.

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 annotations, an output schema present, and a complex set of sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain what the returned assets are, how to filter them, or the significance of route IDs, leaving critical gaps for correct invocation.

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%, and the description merely lists parameter types ('path_params', 'query', 'headers') without explaining what they contain or how to use them. It doesn't compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, so agents are left guessing about the structure of query filters and path parameters.

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 'Retrieve assets' and the endpoint, but it's mostly a restatement of the name and the HTTP call. It doesn't clarify the specific purpose or what distinguishes it from the many sibling report query tools, such as get_r_report_queries_asset_software or get_r_report_queries_lightweight_assets.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions the HTTP method and parameters, not the context in which this specific asset retrieval is appropriate compared to the many other report query siblings.

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