list_assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: no paging exists, an empty result does not mean the file is unavailable, no download_url is present, and a separate API key is required.

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?

Though fairly long, every sentence earns its place. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by important caveats and edge cases. The structure moves from identity to relations to limitations to authentication, which is logical and scannable.

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 parameterless read-only listing tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the key operational gotchas: no pagination, no download URLs, how empty results should be interpreted, and the credential requirement. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document at the parameter level. The description still adds helpful semantic context about result fields like `asset_type` and `sync_completion`, reaching the baseline expected for a parameterless tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the organization's asset library - the files courses are built from.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by stating that `list_lessons` returns a `content_asset_id` that this tool resolves, and that `get_asset` is the only way to get a download link.

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 gives explicit usage context: v2 has no assets endpoint, so this is the only way to see existing content. It also names related tools and their roles, and warns that download links are not present here—telling the agent to use `get_asset` instead. This makes the choice between tools unambiguous.

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