List the brand assets in Brand DNA: product photos, app screenshots, packaging. Each row has name, kind, description, use_when, tags, scan_status (scanning / ready / failed), device, theme, url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context like the Brand DNA scope and scan_status lifecycle values, but it does not disclose pagination, sorting, or whether the full set of assets is returned in one 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?
The first clause is front-loaded with the purpose, and the second clause compactly lists the row fields. It is not bloated, though the field list may partially duplicate the output schema and could be trimmed without losing clarity.
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 no-parameter, read-only list tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it states what is listed and the shape of each row. It stops short of fully complete by not addressing pagination or how this tool relates to get_brand_dna.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema covers 100% of them, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The description's field list describes output rows rather than inputs, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is appropriately strong.
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 states a specific action ('List') and a specific resource ('brand assets in Brand DNA'), then further delimits the scope to product photos, app screenshots, and packaging. The row-field enumeration makes the purpose concrete and distinguishes it from mutation siblings like update_product_screen and delete_product_screen.
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 does not say when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_brand_dna, nor does it give exclusions or context. The imperative 'List...' implies the basic operation, but there is no explicit guidance about when this tool should be selected or avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
