Query OT assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden and does well by disclosing pagination mechanics (`has_more`, `end_cursor`), the `total_count` semantics, the 500-item limit, and the field set returned. However, it does not explain the behavior of the `hidden` and `search` parameters, nor does it state how multiple filters combine (e.g., AND vs OR), so some behavioral aspects remain implicit.

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 long, but it is well-structured: an introductory sentence, a pagination paragraph, and a bulleted list of filter values. The extensive `kind` enum is necessary because the schema lacks enum definitions. The content is information-dense and front-loaded, though slightly verbose in the tag/disambiguation paragraph.

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 10-parameter list endpoint with no annotations or schema descriptions, this description is unusually complete. It covers pagination, filter vocabulary, count semantics, and a practical edge case. The presence of an output schema means return-value details need not be repeated. Minor omissions around `hidden`, `search`, and cross-filter AND/OR behavior keep it from being fully complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed enums for `kind`, `category`, and `criticality_at_least`, explains match behavior for `vendor` and `name_contains`, and elaborates on `tags` semantics including exact strings and ANY matching. It also clarifies `limit` and `after` in the pagination context. Two parameters (`hidden`, `search`) remain unexplained, which prevents a higher score.

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's core function: 'Returns a list of OT assets in the Tenable OT deployment, filtered by the provided criteria.' It also enumerates the asset fields returned and distinguishes itself from related tools like `get_asset` and `get_asset_vulnerabilities`, making the list-level purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: it explains how to use `total_count` to answer 'how many' questions, how to paginate with `after`/`has_more`, and when to call `get_asset` or `get_asset_vulnerabilities` on returned IDs. It also includes a practical use case for using tags to disambiguate duplicate-named assets, which is concrete 'when to use' guidance beyond generic alternatives.

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