list_assets

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

With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral detail: it is capped at the 'limit' parameter to keep responses small. It also discloses the return fields. It does not cover all possible caveats (e.g., pagination, ordering), but the cap behavior is significant and useful.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, and the second sentence succinctly explains the cap behavior. No wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is largely complete. It omits some possible details like sorting or default behavior when limit is omitted, but the schema covers the default. The core purpose, scope, return fields, and resource constraint are all present.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by clearly explaining the sole parameter 'limit' (capping the number of records). This directly adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 identifies the resource (assets) and the action (list), and specifies the scope (Tenable.io / Tenable One) and included fields (hostname, IPs, UUID, last seen, sources). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_asset_details or search_vulnerabilities.

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 for use: it lists assets, which is distinct from more specific tools. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of 5, but the listing intent is unmistakable.

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