assets_ls

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

With no annotations provided, the description must stand alone. It discloses that the namespace is flat and pagination uses a cursor, which are key behaviors. However, it does not state that the tool is read-only, describe the response format, or mention any rate limits or constraints beyond the schema. A 3 is appropriate as it covers essential traits but lacks depth.

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 two sentences long, efficient, and front-loads the core purpose. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or fluff. It is an ideal length for quick understanding.

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 has 6 parameters with schema descriptions but no output schema or annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the main action and pagination but omits the return structure (e.g., that it returns a list with next_cursor), which is important for an agent to handle responses correctly. A 3 reflects minimal viability with clear gaps.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds context about the flat key namespace and pagination cursor, but does not enrich parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is justified because the schema itself is thorough.

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 it lists blobs with an optional prefix filter and supports pagination. The verb 'list' combined with resource 'blobs' and qualifiers ('over a flat key namespace', 'with optional prefix filter') precisely defines the tool's function, distinguishing it from sibling asset tools like assets_get (single blob retrieval) and assets_put (upload).

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 implies usage for listing blobs but does not explicitly state when to or not to use this tool compared to alternatives like assets_get for single blobs or assets_rm for deletion. No guidance on prerequisites or context is provided, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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