Binalyze AIR MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List'), potential side effects, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'all assets' entails (e.g., includes archived assets?). The description is too sparse for a tool with potential complexity.

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?

Extremely concise with a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no wasted verbiage or redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return format (e.g., list of objects, pagination), error conditions, or how 'all assets' interacts with the optional filter. Given the sibling tools include many asset-related operations, more context is needed to use this tool effectively.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the single optional parameter 'organizationIds'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying a broad scope ('all assets'), which aligns with the parameter being optional. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 action ('List') and resource ('assets'), specifying 'all assets in the system' which defines scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_asset_by_id' (specific asset) and 'list_cases' (different resource), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar list operations like 'list_organizations' or 'list_users'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites, filtering capabilities (beyond the optional parameter), or contrast with other asset-related tools like 'get_asset_by_id' or 'add_tags_to_assets'. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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