pci_list_assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context about the data being configuration rather than observation, which clarifies the meaning of the output. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The arg list and clarifying note are directly relevant, and every sentence earns its place without unnecessary filler.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema and readOnly annotation, the description covers the purpose, parameter values, and the key nuance about declared vs observed scope. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema provides no description for asset_type (0% schema description coverage), but the description explicitly lists the allowed values: ALL, IP, DNS, or VIRTUALHOST. This fully compensates for the schema gap and adds meaning to the parameter.

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 tool 'List declared in-scope PCI assets', which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pci_list_scans and pci_list_vulns by focusing on declared assets rather than scan results.

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 provides clear context: 'declared scope -- configuration, not observation' and explicitly notes it 'says nothing about whether a host responded to a scan.' This helps the agent know when to use this tool (to get declared assets) and not to use it for scan observations, but it does not name alternative tools explicitly.

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