mvs_list_assets

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose operational traits, and it does inform the agent that responses use UPPERCASE field names and that there are two parallel count families, which is valuable to prevent confusion in downstream processing. However, it does not disclose that the missing_patches_only parameter switches the endpoint to /assets-missing-patches, nor does it state the tool is read-only or mention any performance implications or side effects. The warning is helpful but coverage is incomplete.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a critical warning about field naming and count families in a compact form. This is highly concise and well-structured with zero wasted words.

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?

While the output schema and parameter schema cover most details, the description misses the behavior of the missing_patches_only parameter, which switches the queried endpoint. The warning about field name casing and count families is useful, but the tool's full usage context (e.g., when to use this vs. sibling tools, endpoint behavior) is absent. Given the presence of an output schema, this is adequate but not complete for a tool with this many options.

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?

All six parameters have descriptions in the schema, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific details, relying entirely on the schema for parameter meaning. It does not even mention the endpoint-switching behavior of missing_patches_only beyond what the param name implies.

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 discovered assets and their vulnerability counts, identifying both the resource and the action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mvs_list_vulnerabilities or mvs_get_asset, relying on the verb 'list' to imply a summary rather than naming what it is not.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mvs_list_vulnerabilities or mvs_get_asset. It only describes the output format and does not mention conditions like needing missing patches, despite the existence of the missing_patches_only parameter. There is no exclusion or mention of preferred use cases.

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