mvs_asset_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List', which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose pagination, sorting/filter behavior, output wrapping, or the meaning of 'sub-resource'. The schema mentions offset/limit but the description itself adds almost no behavioral 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 a single short sentence with no filler or redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the action verb. It is efficient, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

The input schema is complete and an output schema exists, which covers much of the mechanical detail. However, the description does not orient the agent on how this tool relates to sibling asset tools, when to use it, or what behavioral caveats apply to pagination and filters. It is minimally viable but leaves usage context to be inferred.

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 100%, so each parameter, including asset_id, resource, filters, sorts, and include_fields, already has documentation. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a clear scope ('a sub-resource of one asset'), which distinguishes it from top-level list tools like mvs_list_assets and mvs_get_asset. The sub-resource concept is somewhat generic, but the required 'resource' enum in the schema concretely defines which sub-resources are available.

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 phrase 'of one asset' implies this tool is for asset-scoped listing rather than top-level lists like mvs_list_vulnerabilities or mvs_list_missing_patches. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools such as mvs_get_asset or mvs_get_asset_vulnerability, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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