xray_assembly

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behavioral details: include_logs only returns something when tracing is enabled, and it appends the last 5 trace log entries with duration and error. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or safe, but the nature of a report implies no side effects. The reference to configure_tracing() adds useful context.

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 the core purpose in the first line, then lists inclusions in a structured list. The include_logs explanation is separate and clear. It is slightly verbose but justified by the tool's complexity; no waste.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the report contains and the special behavior of include_logs. It does not cover behavior for invalid assembly IDs or the environment parameter, but overall it gives the agent enough context to use the tool correctly for most cases.

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. It explains include_logs in detail but leaves assembly_name_or_id and environment undocumented. While assembly_name_or_id is somewhat inferable from the tool name and description, environment is not explained at all, leaving a significant gap.

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 tool generates a complete report of a registered plug-in assembly, listing exactly what is included (metadata, classes, steps with all configuration, images). The verb 'Generate' and resource 'registered plug-in assembly' are specific, and the single-call nature distinguishes it from granular sibling tools like list_steps or list_images.

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 when to use this tool: 'in a single call' suggests it replaces multiple list calls, and the mention of configure_tracing() for include_logs indicates a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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