asm_describe

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description nevertheless adds genuinely useful behavior: it is 'answered locally, no API call', which tells the agent there are no rate limits, no auth handshake and no latency cost. It also promises 'API limits and quirks' documentation, which helps the agent anticipate downstream asm_request behavior.

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?

It is a single sentence that front-loads the critical fact ('answered locally, no API call') before the content inventory. The list is long but each item maps to real reference material. A slightly shorter enumeration or an explicit 'use before asm_request' clause would have made it tighter.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey what comes back, and the enumerated list of reference sections does that effectively. Combined with the section enum and the safety annotations, an agent has enough to call this correctly. A short note on return shape (structured text versus object) is the only meaningful omission.

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 100%, and the sole 'section' enum parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the schema carries the load here. The description never mentions the section parameter or how the four enum values map to the enumerated content groups. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema documents the parameter completely.

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 names a specific resource category (a local reference) and enumerates its contents: asset types and statuses, issue statuses, severity mapping, categories, test names, record fields, limits and routes. It distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it is answered locally with no API call. However, there is no explicit verb such as 'get' or 'look up', so the agent must infer that the tool returns documentation rather than data.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the phrase 'the read-only routes asm_request may call' hints that this tool should be consulted before asm_request. There is no explicit 'use this before calling X' instruction and no statement of when not to use it. The reference is adequate for an agent that reasons about tool relationships, but it leaves the sequencing to inference.

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