search_assets

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

No annotations exist. The description only lists search fields and omits behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, error handling, or return format. It does not disclose any side effects or system constraints.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action and resource with no redundant information.

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 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description should explain pagination, default behavior, or result structure. It lacks these details, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand invocation requirements.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description adds minimal value beyond listing a few fields; it does not clarify edge cases, format expectations, or interaction between parameters.

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 identifies the resource ('InsightIDR assets (endpoints)') and specific search criteria (hostname, IP address, OS, agent status). It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like search_investigations or search_users, which cover different entities.

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 implies usage for searching assets by common fields but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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