scratchjr_list_assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is safe. The description adds the qualifier 'real installed' to differentiate from hypothetical or virtual assets, but it does not disclose output structure, pagination, or any other behavioral nuance. With annotations covering safety, the bar is lower, yet the description adds only minimal extra context.

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 crisp sentences. The first states the core purpose; the second provides a key usage hint. No filler or repetition. The information is front-loaded and every word 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?

The tool is simple with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description tells what it lists and hints that md5 filenames are returned, but it does not explicitly describe the return format or explain the 'search' parameter. For a low-complexity tool this is adequate but not fully complete; the agent still has to infer some behavior from the parameter names.

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%, meaning the description does not explain either parameter. The schema itself provides enum values for 'kind' and a maxLength for 'search', but the description does not clarify what 'search' does or how 'kind' interacts with the listing. Since coverage is low, the description must compensate, and it fails to do so.

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 lists installed assets (characters, backgrounds, sounds). It distinguishes from siblings like scratchjr_add_svg_asset by focusing on listing rather than adding. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 provides a practical usage hint: 'Use exact md5 filenames in projects.' This tells the agent why to call the tool (to get md5 filenames for project references). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but for a listing tool the use case is straightforward and no conflicting sibling exists.

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