tdx-asset-search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's a search operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens on no results. For a search tool with 9 parameters, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool, though it could be more front-loaded with critical information. The brevity is good but comes at the cost of completeness.

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's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'assets' are in TDX context, what the search returns, how filters combine, or error conditions. For a search tool in a system with many sibling tools, more context is needed for effective use.

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 the schema fully documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond 'with filters', which is already implied by the parameter names. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding.

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 'Search TDX assets with filters' clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('TDX assets'), but it's vague about what 'assets' are and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'tdx-asset-get' or 'tdx-cmdb-search'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about scope or distinction.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tdx-asset-get' (for specific assets) or 'tdx-cmdb-search' (for broader CMDB searches). It mentions 'with filters' but doesn't specify typical use cases or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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