get_report_queries_asset_registry_misconfiguration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions the HTTP method GET (implying read-only) but does not explicitly state safety, authentication requirements, or rate limits. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the endpoint itself.

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 two sentences with no superfluous words. The purpose is stated first, followed by concise parameter placement. It is efficient, though it could be slightly more informative without harm.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described. However, the tool has 4 generic parameters and zero schema coverage, so the description must compensate by specifying how to construct the request. It only gives high-level placement advice, leaving the agent without enough detail to correctly formulate filters, pagination, or required headers.

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 all parameters are generic objects with additionalProperties. The description adds some guidance by mapping path_params to route IDs, query to filters/pagination, and headers to required headers, which is helpful but still vague—it does not enumerate the specific filter keys, pagination fields, or header names.

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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve asset registry misconfiguration') and the specific resource (GET /report_queries/asset_registry_misconfiguration). It distinguishes this from siblings like get_r_report_queries_asset_software by naming the exact misconfiguration context, though it does not elaborate on what 'misconfiguration' encompasses.

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 generic guidance on where to place route IDs, filters, pagination, and headers, but it does not specify when to use this tool over other report query tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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