get_all_assets

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It correctly states the operation is a retrieval ('조회'), but it does not disclose the output format, whether pagination is supported (though the 'first' param suggests it), any authentication requirements, or potential side effects. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. The parenthetical business requirement adds minor context but does not detract. It is appropriately sized and easy to scan.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and some detail fields. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, default result size, or how to handle large result sets. With no annotations, more explicit disclosure (e.g., read-only nature) would be expected, but given the simplicity, the current level is adequate.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'first' with its description ('조회할 자산 수 (기본 50)'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema already states, but no additional context is necessary.

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 (조회/retrieve) and resource (전체 IT자산 목록과 상세 정보) and names the fields returned (OS, processor, virtualization, domain). It clearly states it returns all assets, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_installed_applications or get_asset_product_endpoints without explicitly naming them, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It mentions a business requirement ('IT자산 식별·관리') but that is context, not usage criteria. No exclusions, alternatives, or conditional triggers are given.

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