get_report_queries_asset_open_ports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET) and that it retrieves data, but doesn't mention pagination behavior, required authentication, rate limits, or what the response contains. The description is minimal and doesn't add meaningful behavioral context beyond the endpoint call.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and endpoint, then lists where parameters go. It is concise and has no wasted words, though it could be more informative 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?

Given the tool has 4 generic parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that is not described, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what route IDs are valid, what filters/pagination parameters exist, what headers are required, or what the response looks like. An agent would likely need to inspect the API docs or guess.

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 schema parameters are generic (body, query, headers, path_params) with no property details. The description mentions 'route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, and any required request headers in headers,' which adds some meaning, but it doesn't specify which route IDs, what filters, or what headers are expected. It partially compensates but leaves most parameter semantics undefined.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('asset open ports'), and names the exact HTTP endpoint. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_r_asset_asset_ports by indicating this is a report query endpoint, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the closely named sibling get_r_report_queries_asset_ports_view.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only says to provide route IDs, filters, pagination, and headers, but doesn't explain what filters are available, what route IDs mean, or when this report query is preferred over the many sibling report query tools.

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