asset_class-list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'list' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is acceptable but adds no further detail about potential side effects, performance, or output format. This is minimal but sufficient for a simple list tool, hence a mid-range score.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any redundant wording or unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It conveys the core function clearly. However, it does not mention what fields or information the profiles contain, nor does it indicate whether results are paginated. Given the simplicity of the operation, this is acceptable, but a bit more context could enhance completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline score of 4 applies because the absence of parameters is clear from the schema, and the description correctly implies a parameterless operation. No additional parameter clarification is needed.

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 states 'List Layer 2 game-asset class profiles', which clearly identifies a list operation on a specific resource (asset class profiles). It distinguishes from sibling tool asset_class-describe, which presumably focuses on a single profile. However, the term 'Layer 2' is not explained, leaving some ambiguity about the exact domain.

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 like asset_class-describe. There is no mention of prerequisites, intended use cases, or exclusions. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name and context.

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