My assets

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

The description is transparent about the read-only nature of the operation ('List') and clarifies the meaning of the 'pendingEdit' status. However, it does not disclose potential details like pagination, sorting, or whether only published items are included. With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden, but it is adequate for a simple listing operation.

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, concise sentence that conveys the essential information without any extraneous detail. It is well-structured and easy to read.

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 empty input schema and lack of output schema, the description provides sufficient context by stating what is returned (submissions with status) and explaining the 'pendingEdit' state. It could be more complete by listing return fields, but it is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and expected output.

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 tool has no parameters (empty schema), so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly indicates that the tool takes no input.

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 clearly states the tool's function: listing the user's submissions with status. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'my_packs' (lists packs) and 'search_assets' (searches assets) by explicitly focusing on the user's own submissions.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools. It does not mention that search_assets might be better for filtered searches or that my_packs is for packs. The differentiation is only implied by the wording, not explicitly stated.

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