List Project Assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are paginated and the default folder scope, but says nothing about return shape, ordering, or behavior when no assets match.

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?

Two compact, front-loaded sentences with a usage trigger; nothing is padded. The Args recap is somewhat redundant with the 100%-covered schema but remains brief.

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?

For a simple paginated read with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the definition is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is that the response_format parameter (markdown vs json) and the resulting output shape are not mentioned, which matters since no output schema exists.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema; the description's Args line largely restates them. It adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb (browse/find) and resource (AssetDatabase assets), plus the filtering dimensions (folder, name substring, type) and pagination. An agent can distinguish it from scene-object tools like unity_find_gameobjects, though the description never names that distinction explicitly.

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?

"Use when: locating prefabs, materials or textures before instantiating or assigning them" gives a clear contextual trigger. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. vs unity_folder_structure or unity_find_gameobjects), so it falls short of 5.

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