gorelo_list_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the listing is cursor-paginated and ordered by newest-created first, which are non-obvious and important behaviors. It does not mention read-only semantics, but that is often inferred from 'list'. It also does not describe potential side effects, but as a list operation, side effects are unlikely. The disclosed pagination and ordering add real value beyond the schema.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then adds key behavioral details (pagination, ordering). Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is optimally sized for quick comprehension.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description is somewhat thin. It explains pagination and ordering but does not mention the filtering capabilities, which are crucial for effective use. There is no mention of common use cases, how to combine filters, or what the response contains. The description is adequate for a simple list tool but falls short for a tool with this many parameters and no output schema.

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 67%, meaning several parameters (query, clientIds, statusIds) lack descriptions. The tool description provides no additional parameter semantics, such as how filters interact or what query matches. It does not compensate for the schema gaps, leaving agents without guidance on how to use the filtering parameters effectively. This is a significant gap for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'agent (managed device) assets', and the scope 'for the service provider'. It also adds pagination and ordering details. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gorelo_get_asset (singular) and gorelo_list_custom_assets by specifying the asset type.

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 implies this tool is for listing assets, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. It lacks guidance on when to use gorelo_get_asset instead, or how filtering parameters relate to use cases. The purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer basic usage, but there is no explicit routing or alternative guidance.

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