get_linked_assets_counters

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely states 'Get counters of linked assets' without clarifying what 'counters' are, what is included in the count, or whether the operation is read-only. No side effects, auth needs, or limitations are mentioned.

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 sentence that is front-loaded but lacks detail. It is not verbose, but it fails to convey essential information, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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 complexity (2 required params, no output schema, no annotations, low schema coverage), the description is grossly insufficient. It provides no information about return values, behavior, or parameter usage, leaving the agent with little to work with.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the two required parameters ('assets_source_id', 'from_status'). The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names, leaving their semantics entirely unclear.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'counters of linked assets', making the purpose clear. The sibling 'get_linked_cis_counters' suggests a differentiation by asset type, but it is not explicitly articulated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings or other tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios that would help an agent decide to invoke it.

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