konsulto_create_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. While it indicates a creation operation, it omits side effects (e.g., duplicate detection, required permissions, whether it modifies audit state) and does not hint at return values or error conditions.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant information. The purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds actionable usage context. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the usage scenario and follow-up but fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., asset ID) or highlight required fields beyond what the schema provides. It is adequate but has gaps.

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 67%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds marginal value by referencing host/URL/IP, which aligns with the identifiers and type parameters, but does not provide additional meaning 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 the action ('Create a new asset') and the context ('in the active audit'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the trigger (scan/evidence reveals untracked host/URL/IP) and suggesting a follow-up tool (konsulto_link_asset).

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool ('when a scan or evidence reveals a host/URL/IP that isn't yet tracked') and provides a recommended next step, but does not include explicit what-not-to-use or alternatives beyond the implied difference from other tools.

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