list_assertions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the origin field ('own' vs 'inherited') and notes that inherited assertions are included, adding useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 description covers the essential logic (listing, mutual exclusivity, origin explanation). Given the existence of an output schema (not shown) and 75% schema coverage, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 75% (three of four params have descriptions). The description adds value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity of control_id and assumption_id and the meaning of the origin field, compensating for the lack of annotation.

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 begins with a clear verb and resource: 'List active assertions for a control or assumption.' It precisely states the function and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like submit_assertions or delete_assertion.

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 explicitly instructs to provide exactly one of control_id or assumption_id, which is a key usage guideline. While it doesn't compare extensively with all siblings, it gives clear context for when to use this tool.

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