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

Annotations already signal read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: default returns every asset, pagination semantics, cursor meaning, end-of-page detection, multi-space authentication flow, and a prompt-injection caution. No contradiction with annotations.

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 core listing and pagination behavior is front-loaded and clearly structured. However, the ChangeRequests sentence and stored-content admonition are general platform guidance not specific to assets_list, which adds minor noise to an otherwise focused description.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation, pagination, multi-space handling, and response content at a useful level. It could list the exact metadata fields, but the phrase 'file metadata and usage counts' plus the endpoint reference is sufficient for correct selection and basic invocation.

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 already covers all parameters at 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the schema: omitting limit returns every asset, cursor requires limit, and cursor is the previous page's last asset id. It also clarifies that targetSpaceId requires an auth_verify call and user confirmation.

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 and resource: lists assets in the space, newest first, with file metadata and usage counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like assets_get, assets_download, and assets_read_text_lines, which target individual assets or content.

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?

Provides clear operational guidance: omit limit for all assets, use cursor for pagination, and call auth_verify plus ask the user for targetSpaceId in multi-space accounts. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the list-vs-get distinction is strongly implied by the description.

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