set_project_assets

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains that the directory is mounted read-only into hub tool containers and returns the stored path, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwriting previous path) or permissions beyond the mount 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?

Two concise sentences plus structured param/return docs. No fluff, front-loaded with clear action and context. Every word earns its place.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, but output schema exists), the description adequately explains purpose and parameter. It covers read-only mounting and return value, making it complete for basic use.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning to the single parameter 'assets_path' by stating it expects a directory path. This compensates for the schema gap, though format constraints (absolute/relative) are not specified.

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 tool sets the directory for analysis targets, using specific verbs like 'Set' and 'Points', and differentiates from sibling tools (e.g., init_project, list_artifacts) by focusing on configuration of target files.

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 implies usage when directing SecPipe to analysis targets and mentions read-only mounting, but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternative tools (e.g., init_project might also set paths). Guidance is implied but incomplete.

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