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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful mode context about listing folders versus project assets, but does not disclose pagination behavior, return shape, or workspace requirements.

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 single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and readable, though its brevity contributes to under-specification rather than being maximally informative.

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?

With no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description carries most of the explanatory burden. It leaves required workspace, pagination via limit/cursor, and return behavior undocumented, which is insufficient for a four-parameter list 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 0% across four parameters. The description only hints at the project parameter’s meaning by saying “one project’s assets” and says nothing about the required workspace parameter, limit, or cursor.

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 verb-resource pair: listing creative project folders or one project’s assets. The dual mode is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as assets_list or creatives_list.

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 phrase “or one project’s assets” implies a conditional usage based on whether a project is supplied, so the mode switch is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives like assets_list.

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