qradar_list_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It communicates a read-only search-and-list behavior and describes the returned JSON contents, but it does not address authentication requirements, API rate limits, or data freshness caveats. This is adequate but leaves some behavioral context 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 front-loaded with a clear one-line purpose, followed by a compact Arg list and a short Returns section. Every part contributes useful information, and the filter/sort examples are valuable despite their length.

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 moderate-complexity listing tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description covers filtering, sorting, pagination, and return content. It doesn't mention auth prerequisites or explicitly route to qradar_get_asset, but these are minor gaps given the clear operation and the presence of sibling tool names.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the Args section fully documents every parameter with concrete AQL-style filter examples, sort syntax like '-risk_score_sum', and the meaning of limit/offset for pagination. The description fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter guidance.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('Search and list') and a specific resource ('assets discovered by QRadar SIEM'), and the Args/Returns sections make clear it returns a filtered asset list. It is easily distinguished from the sibling qradar_get_asset, which targets a single asset.

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 establishes the list/search context by explaining filter expressions, sorting, pagination, and return shape, so an agent knows when to call it for multi-asset queries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended context is clear enough from the operation and sibling names.

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