list_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a read operation. It says nothing about permissions, pagination, cost, or whether archived items are excluded by default. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the operational behavior remains undisclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriately sized for a list tool. It is efficient rather than padded, though it errs toward under-specification rather than true completeness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the definition is too thin for a tool that anchors a large sibling family. An agent lacks enough to invoke it with the right filters.

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 all three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. "Character and shot" loosely hints at the asset_type domain, but project_root and include_archived are never explained, and the asset_type filter values are left unstated.

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 gives a clear verb ("List") and resource ("character and shot identities plus their explicit versions"), so an agent knows the general shape of what it returns. However, it does not distinguish this tool from near-neighbors like inspect_project or inspect_asset, which could plausibly also enumerate assets, leaving the boundary ambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many siblings (inspect_project, inspect_asset, compare_asset_versions). The agent must infer that this is the entry-point enumeration call, and nothing warns about when it is the wrong choice.

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