get_data_layer_assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: every match is loaded to read its type (a real cost side effect), the list is not paginated, and results come from the Asset Registry rather than the loaded world.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and scope in sentence one, disambiguation second, and a compact Returns line last. Dense but no filler; the Returns line is justified because no output schema exists.

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 inlines the return shape (path, array of name/path/type, count), and the disambiguation plus loading/pagination notes cover everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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%, including the `asset_path` alias rationale, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates recursion ('all its sub-folders') but adds no format or default details beyond what the schema already documents.

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 (Lists), resource (UDataLayerAsset assets, subclasses included), scope (a content folder and all sub-folders), and the mechanism (Asset Registry), plus what each result carries. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_data_layer_instances and get_data_layer_asset_info, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use-which rule: 'These are layer assets, not the layers of the open World Partition map: list those with get_data_layer_instances. For one asset's runtime flags and debug color use get_data_layer_asset_info.' Both the negative case and the alternative are named.

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