superops_assets_software

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that, nor does it mention pagination limits, sorting behavior, or any side effects. Given the lack of annotations, this is insufficient.

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, clear sentence that is appropriately front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary fluff.

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 low complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description sufficiently conveys the purpose. However, because there is no output schema, it would be beneficial to clarify what 'software inventory' includes (e.g., list of software names/versions), but overall it is complete enough for a simple retrieval tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema—it reinforces that assetId identifies the specific asset, but does not clarify max or search semantics beyond what the schema already states. No additional parameter context is provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('software inventory') scoped to a specific asset, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like superops_assets_list (lists assets) and superops_assets_get (gets asset details). No ambiguity exists.

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 indicates a clear context—this tool is for retrieving software inventory for a specific asset, implying the user already has an assetId. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., use assets_list to find assetId), so it misses a perfect score.

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