coeus_ui_asset_sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states what the tool finds. It does not mention side effects, return format, or any operational behavior beyond the basic action. This is a minimal disclosure.

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 compact and front-loaded, combining purpose and pipeline context in a single sentence with no filler. It is efficient and understandable, though slightly hyphen-like rather than flowing prose.

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?

For a tool with six parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description underspecifies how parameters should be populated or what the tool returns. Pipeline context helps somewhat, but an agent still lacks guidance on parameter usage or expected results.

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%, though the parameter descriptions are generic names like 'Model' and 'Asset need'. The tool description adds little semantic meaning beyond hinting that 'licensed' and 'manifests' relate to license_requirements and asset_need, so it remains at the baseline for full coverage.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Find licensed UI asset sources and manifests'. The pipeline placement ('step 4 before static asset planning') helps distinguish it from related planning tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 context by positioning the tool in a pipeline step, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus other related tools or provide exclusion criteria. It gives some context but leaves usage boundaries to inference.

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