workbench_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that only loaded, visible cards are included and that unloaded pages are excluded, setting accurate expectations about the tool's limited scope. It does not discuss side effects, but this appears to be a read-only 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the important limitation is stated separately. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter listing tool, the description is reasonably complete. It states what is listed and what is excluded, though it does not describe the return structure or how to find the job_id. Given the low complexity and absence of an output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning to the lone 'job_id' parameter. Saying 'on this job page' implies that job_id identifies the relevant job page, but the description does not explain how to obtain or format the job_id beyond what the parameter name suggests.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List currently loaded visible asset cards and thumbnail identities'. It also clarifies scope with 'on this job page' and differentiates itself from broader listing tools by noting it does not enumerate unloaded pages.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need only currently loaded visible asset cards and thumbnails. The explicit exclusion of unloaded pages provides clear context, though it does not name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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