list_catalog_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It transparently describes the return fields (IDs, names, types, spaces, URLs, timestamps), pagination parameters with defaults and limits, and even includes the underlying Catalog API endpoint. It implies read-only behavior through 'browse' and 'consumption URLs,' though it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or discuss rate limits or error behavior.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, when-to-use, expected output, parameters, examples, filters, asset types, and a note. The opening sentence states the core function immediately. While the description is long, every section provides actionable details and no superfluous content. It earns a 4 rather than 5 due to its length; a more compact version could retain the same value.

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 complexity (5 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is exceptionally complete. It explains what results look like, provides usage guidelines, gives numerous examples, details common filters, and even names the underlying API. It fully equips an agent to know when and how to invoke the tool 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?

The input schema already documents all 5 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples for filter_expression (e.g., spaceId eq 'SAP_CONTENT'), showing typical select_fields usage, and giving common filter combinations. It also explains asset types that appear in results, which enriches the parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 clear, specific statement: 'Browse all data assets across all SAP Datasphere spaces.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_space_assets (specific space) or find_assets_by_column (column-specific search). The 'Use this tool when' section further reinforces the tool's role as a system-wide catalog browser.

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 an explicit 'Use this tool when' list with concrete scenarios like building a complete data catalog or discovering assets across all spaces. However, it does not name alternative tools for exclusion, such as 'use search_catalog for targeted text search' or 'use get_space_assets for a single space.' This is clear context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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