get_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' data (implying read-only) and returns a 'formatted list', but lacks critical details: whether it's paginated, rate-limited, requires specific permissions, or how errors are handled. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. There's minimal waste, though the 'Args' section could be more integrated into the flow rather than a separate block.

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 has 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists (which covers return values), the description is moderately complete. It explains the purpose and parameters to some extent but lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling, performance) and usage guidance, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent use.

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 adds some value by explaining ems_system_id comes from 'list_ems_systems', asset_type options (though the enum already lists them), and that fleet_id filters aircraft only for asset_type='aircraft'. However, it doesn't fully document all parameters (e.g., data types, constraints beyond the enum) or provide examples, leaving room for improvement.

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 retrieves reference data for specific asset types (fleets, aircraft, airports, flight phases), using the verb 'Get' with the resource 'reference data'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_ems_systems' or 'get_field_info', which might also retrieve reference data in different contexts.

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 minimal guidance: it mentions filtering aircraft by fleet ID only for asset_type='aircraft', but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_databases' or 'query_database'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an EMS system ID from list_ems_systems) or typical use cases.

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