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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly reveals that only 'active' items are returned, items are sorted newest-first, file_paths are durable, signed URLs are temporary, and pagination is cursor-based. This goes well beyond a minimal description, though it does not address error or empty-result 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?

Three focused sentences: the first states the core behavior, the second explains the returned asset fields, and the third covers filtering and pagination. No wasted words and key information is front-loaded.

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?

The description is complete for a list tool of this complexity. Output schema exists, parameter schemas are fully described, and the description adds essential behavioral context such as active-only filtering, ordering, asset URL semantics, and pagination. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 parameters like type, limit, and cursor are already documented. The description adds useful context around cursor usage and output asset fields, but it does not substantially expand parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Returns active saved items'), the exact resource ('saved items owned by the authenticated account'), and ordering ('newest first'). It also lists supported type filters, making the tool's scope clear and differentiating it from the many sibling generation tools.

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 how to filter by type and how to paginate using next_cursor. It also implies usage contexts—reusing durable file_paths in generation APIs and previewing/downloading via signed URLs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for a list/retrieval tool.

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