list_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only list operation but doesn't state permissions required, whether results are paginated (though limit/offset imply it), or any other behavioral traits like ordering or default filters. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but safety and operational context are missing.

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 purpose statement followed by a structured parameter list. Each entry is brief and earns its place. However, the format could be considered slightly verbose for a list tool, but it's efficient overall.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers parameter semantics well but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral context (e.g., sorting, permissions), and sibling differentiation. It is adequate but incomplete for a tool with this many parameters and no annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate entirely. It provides concise explanations for all 9 parameters, clarifying that name and tag use 'contains' matching, lifecycle values, and that limit defaults to 25. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all edge cases (e.g., behavior of boolean flags).

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('List products (assets)') and clarifies the domain term 'products' as 'assets', which is valuable since sibling tools like list_organizations and list_findings make it ambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_product or list_engagements, so it falls short of a 5.

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 states what can be filtered but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_product (for a single product) or list_organizations. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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