get_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions returning a list of assets with properties, without disclosing behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or potential side effects. Minimal transparency.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, using concise language. Every sentence serves a purpose, though it could be slightly more terse without losing clarity.

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 presence of an output schema and 4 parameters, the description covers purpose and basic parameter meaning but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context. It is minimally adequate but incomplete for full agent guidance.

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 description provides meaningful explanations for each parameter: asset_type examples, search case-insensitivity, max_assets default, snapshot_id optional. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 'Get assets from the scan with optional filtering,' specifying the resource (assets) and action (get) with filtering capabilities. It distinguishes from siblings like get_findings or get_attack_paths by focusing on assets.

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 for retrieving assets with filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_findings or get_relationships. No exclusion criteria or context provided.

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