asset_search

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 states 'Search assets...' but does not mention that the operation is read-only, what the response includes (e.g., list vs. detail), whether pagination applies, or any rate limits. The description adds no insight beyond the immediate action.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word adds value.

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?

With one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description gives a minimal but functional overview. It does not specify the return format or whether 'assets' encompasses hosts, services, vulnerabilities, or all types. Given the surrounding asset-related tools, more context about the result set and how it aligns with other asset tools would be beneficial.

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 one 'query' parameter with 0% description coverage. The description partially compensates by indicating the query can be an IP, hostname, service, or CVE, giving context to the otherwise opaque parameter. However, it does not explain accepted format, case sensitivity, or whether multiple criteria can be combined.

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 'Search assets by IP, hostname, service, or CVE.' This specifies the verb (search), resource (assets), and scope (specific query types), and distinguishes it from listing tools like asset_list_hosts or asset_list_services by indicating a focused search capability.

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 implied usage is to find assets matching a query, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools such as asset_list_hosts or asset_list_services, nor any mention of exclusions or fallback tools. The context is clear but under-explored.

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