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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only listing but never says so, and it omits pagination behavior despite a limit parameter defaulting to 50, nor does it say whether results are ordered or scoped to a workspace the caller must have access to.

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?

Two short sentences with the core operation front-loaded and zero filler. The second sentence is slightly redundant with the schema's type enum, which keeps it from being maximally efficient.

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 tool with a fully documented three-parameter schema, the description covers the essentials. With no output schema, though, it should at least hint at what is returned or how the 50-item default limit behaves, which it does not.

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 workspaceId, limit, and the type enum are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the type filter with the same enum values, adding no syntax or behavioral detail beyond it.

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 ('List assets in a workspace') plus the filterable dimension, so the operation is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from closely related siblings such as list_media, list_folders, or get_asset, so an agent still has to guess which listing tool applies.

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?

'Can filter by type' describes a capability, not a condition for selecting this tool. There is no guidance on when to prefer list_assets over get_asset (single asset) or list_media, nor any mention of prerequisites like needing a valid workspace.

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