snipeit_statuslabels_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation and 'with a given status label' conveys the filtering behavior. Still, it does not disclose pagination, auth expectations, or the shape of the returned asset list.

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?

It is a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's action and scope with no filler. Every word contributes value, and the core behavior is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple one-parameter list operation with no output schema, this is generally complete: an agent knows to supply a status label ID and expect a list of assets. Minor missing details are pagination and exact asset field shape, but they are not critical given the tool's simplicity and sibling context.

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 already fully documents the only parameter ('Status label ID') at 100% coverage. The description does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema; it just references the status label concept.

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') tied to a clear resource ('assets') and a specific filter ('with a given status label'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like snipeit_statuslabels_list (list status labels), snipeit_statuslabels_get (get one label), and snipeit_hardware_list (list all assets).

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 intended use is implied: call this when you want assets associated with a particular status label ID. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as snipeit_hardware_list or snipeit_users_assets.

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