asset_list_services

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'List services' without clarifying read-only behavior, pagination, result limits, or the scope of services (e.g., asset inventory vs. scan results). The behavior is implicitly safe as a list operation, but no concrete behavioral details are given.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence: 'List services, optionally filtered by host or service name.' Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return format, whether the tool is read-only, or how it relates to sibling tools like asset_list_hosts or nmap_service_detection. The optional port filters are also unmentioned, leaving gaps in the agent's understanding when deciding to invoke this 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?

The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must explain all parameters. It mentions host and service name filters but omits min_port and max_port entirely, leaving the meaning of the port range ambiguous. This does not sufficiently compensate for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly names the resource 'services', along with optional filtering by host or service name. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like asset_list_hosts and asset_list_vulnerabilities, though it does not explicitly call out those alternatives.

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 by stating the tool lists services with optional filters, giving agents a sense of when to invoke it. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nmap_service_detection or asset_list_hosts, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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