get_r_report_queries_external_asset_ssl_ciphers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does imply a read-only operation via 'Retrieve records' and the GET verb, which is correct and helpful. However, it does not mention required authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond 'filters and pagination in query,' or any error conditions. The instruction to include 'any required request headers' is vague—it doesn't specify which headers are expected. For a simple GET, this is basic but incomplete.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action and then methodically lists where each parameter type goes. It's efficient and uses only necessary words, though the sentence is somewhat run-on and could be split for clarity. There is no fluff, and it covers the key operational details.

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?

The output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, the description fails to articulate what the tool actually retrieves (SSL cipher records for external assets) beyond the generic phrase 'records.' Without reading the name carefully, an agent might not know the tool's domain. It also doesn't state why one would use this over similar report query tools like the SSL attack or ports data siblings. The parameter guidance is present but shallow. Given the many sibling tools, this context is important and is only partially addressed.

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 does add value by mapping each container parameter to its purpose: path_params for route IDs, query for filters and pagination, headers for required headers. This is more than update_drive provided. However, it doesn't specify the structure of filters or pagination, nor which headers are 'required,' leaving significant ambiguity. It gives a high-level orientation but not enough detail for confident parameter construction.

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 clear action ('Retrieve records') and names the exact HTTP endpoint (GET /r/report_queries/external_asset_ssl_ciphers). While it doesn't explicitly say 'SSL ciphers for external assets,' the tool name conveys that and the endpoint path is specific. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_r_report_queries_external_asset_ssl_attack by the resource suffix, though it doesn't call out the difference explicitly.

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 instructions on how to structure the call (where to put path params, query, headers) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, typical usage scenarios, or conditions that would make this tool preferable over sibling report query tools. This is a significant gap for an agent deciding which tool to invoke.

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