contentrain_list_assets

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying the source file ('assets.json'), but doesn't disclose other traits like pagination, sorting, error conditions, or what 'registered assets' means operationally. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, read-only annotation) but lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but doesn't explain the return format, what constitutes a 'registered asset', or how results are structured, leaving gaps for the agent to infer.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter info, and it appropriately doesn't discuss parameters. A baseline of 4 is given since no parameters exist to explain.

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 action ('List all registered assets') and the target resource ('assets.json'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'contentrain_list_content' or 'contentrain_list_models' that also list different resource types.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparison to sibling tools like 'contentrain_describe_model' or 'contentrain_get_content' that might retrieve specific assets.

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