list_assertions

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 implies a non-destructive read operation by using 'List', but does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, rate limits, or behavior when both IDs or none are provided. The constraint 'exactly one' is mentioned, but incomplete parameter handling is not discussed.

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 sentences with no unnecessary words. The action and key constraint are front-loaded. Every detail serves a purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a critical usage rule. It does not explain what 'active' means vs inactive, but the output schema likely handles return structure. Server_version remains undocumented, but overall the description is sufficient 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 coverage is 75% (model_id, control_id, assumption_id have descriptions; server_version does not). The description adds the mutual exclusion rule for control_id and assumption_id, which is already hinted in the schema. This adds redundancy rather than new meaning. For server_version, no additional guidance is given.

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 verb ('List') and the resource ('active assertions') with a specific filter ('for a control or assumption'). This distinguishes it from other list tools by specifying the entity type, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 key proper usage. However, it does not mention when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The sibling list tools (e.g., list_attestations) are different enough that confusion is unlikely.

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