list_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose non-obvious behavior: the return is a dict of file-relative paths plus a 'truncated' flag when the library has more files than one call reads. That truncation warning is genuinely valuable for an agent. It doesn't state read-only/absence of side effects explicitly, but 'List' makes that clear.

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 single-sentence purpose, then Args/Returns headings that are scannable and free of filler. Slightly verbose in restating the enum list, but every section earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be detailed, yet the description adds the truncation signal a schema alone might not convey. The remaining gap is that truncation is a dead end—there's no offset parameter or stated remedy—so an agent doesn't know how to retrieve the remainder.

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%, so the description must compensate and largely does: 'library' is explained as a name obtained from list_asset_libraries, and 'asset_type' is explained both by its enumerated values and by 'Empty for all'. It stops short of clarifying matching semantics for library (exact vs. partial, case sensitivity).

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+resource ('List the assets in a library') and immediately scopes the output ('by file, for place_asset'). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from list_asset_libraries by naming that tool as the source of the library parameter, so an agent can route between the two without opening schemas.

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?

It supplies a concrete workflow: get the library name from list_asset_libraries, then call this tool, with results intended for place_asset. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., use list_blend_contents for the current file's contents), which keeps it short of a 5.

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