Lists non-Markdown assets for an expanded concept, returning path, size, SHA-256, and executable status; flags files over 10 MiB as oversized (deletable only).
Lists the non-Markdown assets of an expanded concept: path, size, sha256, executable. A file over 10 MiB shows oversized: true (deletable only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| concept_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description still adds real substance: the exact fields returned, and the rule that files over 10 MiB report oversized: true and are 'deletable only'. That constraint is meaningful behavior an agent could not infer from annotations or schema. It does not explain the idempotentHint=false, which is the remaining gap.
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 sentences, both dense with usable information and nothing redundant; the scope statement is front-loaded ahead of the oversized-file caveat.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and flags the oversized case. It omits ordering, recursion depth, and whether the list is exhaustive, but for a single-parameter read tool this is close to complete.
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% for the single concept_id parameter, so the description must carry it. 'Of an expanded concept' hints that the id refers to an expanded concept, but no format, source, or example is given. Partial compensation only.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Lists the non-Markdown assets of an expanded concept', with the returned fields enumerated (path, size, sha256, executable). It differentiates itself from artifact_* and source_list by scoping to non-Markdown assets of a concept, though it never names a sibling directly.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'of an expanded concept' signals that the concept must first be expanded (via concept_expand) and that concept_id is an expanded-concept identifier. No explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no alternatives (asset_read, asset_write, artifact_*) are contrasted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.