tenable_list_assets

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

The description correctly identifies the tool as read-only (consistent with readOnlyHint annotation) and mentions pagination. However, it does not detail pagination behavior (e.g., default limit, max limit) or error handling, which would add value beyond the annotation.

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 concise with three clear sentences and a helpful example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 six parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It provides an example and mentions filters but lacks details on parameter formats, valid values for tracking_method or network_id, and the structure of the response beyond a basic example.

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 description partially explains parameters by listing hostname, IP address, tracking method, and network as filters. However, it does not describe all six parameters (e.g., ipv4 vs ipv6 are not distinguished, limit is only implied in example). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate more fully.

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 lists assets from Tenable Vulnerability Management, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like tenable_get_asset (single asset) and tenable_list_scans by focusing on assets. The mention of optional filters further clarifies its scope.

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 context for usage: listing assets with optional filters and pagination. An example is given. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like tenable_get_asset (for a single asset) or tenable_search_vulnerabilities.

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