find_assets

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It correctly indicates a read-only query operation and mentions the default limit and max limit. However, it does not discuss error handling, performance, or pagination beyond the limit parameter. For a query tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 concisely convey purpose, filters, and return format. No filler words or redundant information. Every sentence is essential and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description mentions return fields (name, package_path, class, tags) which is sufficient. It also includes version notes for tag parameters. Missing details like whether results are sorted or paginated, but overall complete for a query tool.

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?

Input schema covers all 6 parameters with 100% description coverage. The description adds value by summarizing the filter categories and mentioning the return fields. This is helpful context but not necessary beyond the schema. Score is baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 it queries the asset registry by class and optional filters (path, name, tags). It returns structured records with specific fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_actors_by_class (focuses on actors) and inspect_asset (single asset inspection).

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 use when you need to find assets by class and filters, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like find_actors_by_class or find_unused_assets. No when-not or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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