asset_labels

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

Annotations are all false, providing minimal guidance. The description adds useful behavioral context: it generates a PDF file, saves it to a specified path, and returns a dict with the path. However, it does not disclose edge cases like what happens if both asset_ids and asset_tags are provided, whether existing files are overwritten, or any permission requirements. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The input and return information are separated clearly, with a dedicated 'Returns:' section. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema details.

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's moderate complexity and the presence of a full input schema and an output schema reference, the description covers the essential use case well. It explains the two input modes and the artifact produced. However, it omits handling of edge cases (e.g., neither identifier provided, behavior when the file already exists) and does not elaborate on the return dict structure beyond a brief mention. This is slightly more than adequate but not exhaustive.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), and the description adds the key semantic insight that asset_ids and asset_tags are alternatives ('Provide either'). This goes beyond the schema, which simply lists each independently. The save_path parameter is also contextualized as the destination for the PDF.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Generate printable labels for assets.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like manage_assets or asset_files, which handle other asset-related operations. The scope is well-defined.

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 clearly states the input options ('Provide either asset_ids or asset_tags') and the output behavior (saved to save_path). While it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, it gives unambiguous context for when to use this tool: whenever printable asset labels are needed. The lack of explicit exclusions or alternative tool references prevents a higher score.

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