invgate_list_assets

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

No annotations provided; the description carries full burden. It states supported features (pagination, filters) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. As a list operation, likely read-only, but not explicit.

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?

Single sentence with front-loaded purpose ('List and search assets') followed by concise enumeration of supported features. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers basic purpose and features, but lacks details on return format, ordering, error handling, and how it differs from sibling list tools. Given no output schema, more context would be helpful for an agent to use correctly.

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 100%, so each parameter has a description. The description adds context by grouping features (pagination -> page/per_page, filter -> asset_type_id, criteria) but does not provide new meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List and search assets', which is a specific verb+resource. It mentions key capabilities (pagination, asset-type filter, criteria), distinguishing it from sibling tools like invgate_get_asset (single asset) and invgate_list_computers (specific type). However, it could more explicitly contrast with type-specific lists.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include type-specific lists (invgate_list_computers) and single asset retrieval (invgate_get_asset), but the description does not help choose between them.

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