List assets

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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that location_name, state_name and user_name are returned beside IDs, which is useful return context, but with an output schema present this is largely structured data already available.

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 tight sentences: the core behavior and type scope come first, the alternative routing second. No filler, every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema, full parameter coverage, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose and routing well. Minor gaps like pagination behavior (the 'range' param) are left to the schema, which is acceptable here.

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 100%, so the schema documents all five parameters including enums and defaults. The description only restates the asset_type enumeration and hints at expanded name fields, adding little beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (assets), scopes it to a given type, and enumerates the valid types. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like glpi_search and glpi_get_asset without opening a schema.

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?

'Use glpi_search for filtered queries' explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it, which is strong routing guidance. It stops short of stating when-not to use this tool or any prerequisites, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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