List asset keys

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds real behavior: README.md files are skipped, a package with no matches returns an empty list rather than an error, keys are sorted and uncapped, and every call rescans local files (i.e., no cached/stale view). These are non-obvious traits an agent cannot infer from the schema or hints.

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?

Purpose and scan scope are front-loaded, followed by routing guidance, then parameter constraints and edge-case behavior. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is restated from the name, title, or schema.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations already carry the safety profile. The description still covers scan scope, parameter form, skip rules, empty-result behavior, ordering, and refresh semantics, leaving no gap an agent would need to guess at.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by ruling out misuse ('exact directory name, not a glob, path, or regex'), stating the resulting scope (community/<package>/assets), and giving a concrete example value (校园情感领域包). It stops short of describing the multi-package precedence between community and 05_资产库 when omitted, but adds clear value over 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List asset files and the uppercase keys they declare') plus the exact scan roots (community/*/assets and 05_资产库/用户自定义), which no sibling shares. It even names the sibling reads it is not (asset_read, module_read, pattern_list), so the agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('discover a key before asset_read') and explicit when-not-to-use with named alternatives ('do not use it to fetch asset text (asset_read) or to list modules/patterns (module_read / pattern_list)'). This is a complete routing rule, not an implication.

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