assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. The embedded HTTP verbs (GET/POST/PUT) usefully disclose read vs. write semantics, but nothing is said about permissions, error behavior, destructive consequences of update/delete-style actions, or response/pagination behavior.

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?

A compact, front-loaded action table where every line earns its place — the scope sentence opens, then each action carries its verb, endpoint, and required params with zero filler.

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 7-param multiplexer with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers routing and required params but leaves gaps: return shapes for list/get actions, pagination, permission requirements, and the exact schema of 'fields'/'items' are unstated.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description does the heavy lifting by mapping each action to its required params (project_id, asset_id, id, items, fields) and clarifying that 'id' means group_id for list_by_group. However the structure of 'fields' and the full item shape are only hinted at ('{asset_name, asset_type,...}').

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?

States a specific resource ('assets in AttackForge') scoped to project and library, and enumerates all nine actions with their HTTP verbs and endpoints. An agent can tell this is the asset-management surface, distinct from the projects, testcases, or vulnerabilities siblings.

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 action list effectively tells the agent which operation to pick and what each requires (e.g. 'list_by_group — requires: id = group_id', 'create_on_project — requires: project_id, items=[...]'), and notes limit defaults to 100. It gives clear context but no explicit when-not or cross-sibling routing guidance.

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