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

The annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that folders and assets are returned together in a single response, without addressing auth, rate limits, or other operational behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by targeted usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler text.

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 rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description provides an adequate high-level summary. It omits mention of the important type filter (folders/videos/all) and pagination behavior, but those are documented in the schema, so the description remains mostly complete.

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 schema already documents all 17 parameters in detail. The description highlights a few high-value parameters (parent_id, title, status, playlist_id), which adds modest value but does not meaningfully expand on the schema's parameter semantics.

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 verb and resources: 'List folders and assets for a workspace in a single response.' It is clear and distinguishes the tool from single-asset getters like get_asset_details, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list_folders or global_search.

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?

It gives useful parameter-based usage ('use parent_id to browse a specific folder, or filters like title, status, and playlist_id to search assets'), but it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as list_folders, global_search, or filter_live_assets.

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