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

ReadOnly, idempotent, non-destructive hints are already in annotations dry; the description adds valuable behavioral details: exposed fields and the mapping of API wire types to semantic types, plus the critical warning that hasAnimation must never be inferred from asset type.

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 compact and information-dense. Each clause earns its place; the static-type and hasAnimation caveats prevent real misinterpretation. Minor USD: no explicit statement of return shape/order, but not required for this read-only list.

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 listing tool, the description sufficiently clarifies type names and a tricky inference issue. It doesn't state default ordering or scope (e.g., project context), but the openWorld and projectId parameter capture the main filtering behavior.

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 schema fully documents all five parameters with descriptions and a limit enum range. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond domain type mapping, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names the exact resource (assets), enumerates the asset categories included, and explicitly disambiguates legacy type names (e.g., collections remain `tileset`, kits as `terrain`, brushable materials as `texture`), making the tool's purpose unmistakable versus list_characters and list_maps.

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 explains what is returned and clarifies type semantics, but it never states when to prefer this over siblings like get_asset or how the list should be used. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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