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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the operation does not contact a target, and it reports the current ownership-authorization state. This helps an agent understand side effects and data scope.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource, the data aspect covered, and a key behavioral qualifier, all without redundancy.

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 simple read-only list operation with two parameters, one required, and full schema description coverage, the description is complete enough. It names the output domain (assets and ownership-authorization state), and the annotations cover safety and idempotency, so no critical invocation context is missing.

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 workspaceSlug and includeArchived fully. The description does not add parameter-level details, but it also does not need to because the schema carries the burden. 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('workspace assets') and adds a distinguishing detail: it reports 'current ownership-authorization state' without contacting a target. This clearly separates it from sibling list tools and from asset-specific operations like get_asset.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when listing workspace assets and their ownership-authorization state without contacting a target. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'without contacting a target' qualifier strongly implies a safe inventory/authorization-check use case.

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