Asset Inventory List

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial context beyond those flags: every filter and the exact whole-query total are evaluated natively by the graph store, facets are self-excluding and not derived from the displayed page, and findings are excluded. This meaningfully informs how an agent should reason about the call.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: core operation, execution semantics, pagination behavior, and content exclusion. There is no filler and no repetition of schema defaults.

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 tool with 12 optional parameters, rich schema documentation, and an output schema, the description covers the behavioral aspects that appear nowhere else. It does not mention sibling routing, but that is more a usage-guideline gap than a completeness gap for invoking this tool 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 the baseline is 3. The description does not explain individual parameters, but it adds global filter semantics—native evaluation, self-excluding facets, and non-page-derived totals—that are absent from the schema and affect how filters should be combined.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Return a filtered, paginated page of inventory asset rows.' The phrase 'page of rows' distinguishes it from singular inventory_asset and aggregate inventory_summary, and 'Findings never appear in the list' carves out a clear boundary from finding-focused 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 description implies the list-and-paginate use case and gives a useful exclusion ('Findings never appear'), but it does not name alternatives or state when to prefer inventory_asset or inventory_summary. No explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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