List assets across environments

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

The readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already communicate that the operation is safe and repeatable, but the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not mention whether assets include specific types, how filters affect results, or any pagination or response characteristics. Since it adds zero value beyond the annotations, a low score is warranted.

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, concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, though that is more a completeness issue than a structure flaw.

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 that there is no output schema and only sparse annotations, the description should explain what assets are returned, how filters work, and what response to expect. It does none of this. The tool appears to be a read-only list operation, but the lack of return format or filter semantics leaves significant 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?

The sole parameter 'filters' is an object with no property descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess what filters are valid or how they affect asset listing. With no compensation from the description, the parameter semantics are essentially undocumented.

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 ('List') and resource ('assets') with a scope ('across Cymulate environments'). It is unambiguous and distinct in subject, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like cymulate_env_list or cymulate_ev_resources_list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only restates the tool's purpose without mentioning prerequisites, exclusions, or related sibling tools that might be more appropriate for specific scenarios.

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