list_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden to disclose behavior. It only states that it lists assets, omitting details such as whether it is read-only, potential side effects, pagination, or authentication requirements. This minimal disclosure leaves important behavioral questions unanswered.

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 consists of two concise sentences: one for purpose and one for the parameter. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action. No extraneous information is present.

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?

While the description covers basic purpose and the only parameter, it lacks details about the return value (e.g., structure, fields), ordering, or any additional context that might help the agent use the tool correctly. For a simple listing tool, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 parameter 'top' is described as 'Optional maximum number of items to return,' which adds semantic meaning beyond the input schema's type and default information. This helps the agent understand how to use the parameter effectively. However, additional details (e.g., default behavior when omitted) would improve clarity.

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 'List assets configured in the current Orchestrator folder.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('assets'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_jobs or list_machines.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it, nor any suggestions for better-suited tools. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool's name and basic description.

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