Ucontrol Read Assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds new behavioral context by explaining the supported filter syntax (aliases asset, geo, unit, context; operators EQUALS/NOT-EQUALS; clauses AND/OR), which goes beyond the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and provides the essential filter syntax without unnecessary verbiage. Every sentence contributes value.

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 has 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core use case (reading asset records for a definition) and the filter feature. It lacks detail on pagination and the meaning of boolean info flags, but the annotations cover safety and the purpose is clear enough for a typical list operation.

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 only 10%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'definition' parameter ('for a definition') and the 'filter' parameter (syntax details). However, other parameters like limit, offset, tagInfo, unitInfo, contextInfo, inclDeleted, and locationInfo receive no explanation, leaving a significant gap.

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 reads asset records for a definition, making the verb and resource explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ucontrol_read_asset (which likely reads a single asset) by specifying 'for a definition' and plural 'records'.

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 usage when you need to fetch multiple asset records tied to a definition, and the filter syntax is outlined with aliases and operators. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as ucontrol_read_asset or ucontrol_read_asset_tags, so it stops short of a full 5.

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