assets_exists

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

The description implies a read-only existence check with no side effects, which is transparent enough for such a simple tool. However, it does not explicitly state that it does not modify anything or describe any edge cases, and no annotations are available to carry this burden.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter existence check, though it could be slightly more explicit about the return value.

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's simplicity, zero parameters, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool does. It lacks only a small amount of operational detail, but nothing critical is missing.

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 the schema covers everything. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable because there are no parameters to document.

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 'Dit si le dossier assets existe' clearly specifies the action (checking existence) and the resource (the assets folder). It is distinct enough from listing tools like list_assets, though it does not explicitly mention that it returns a boolean result.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention suitable scenarios, exclusions, or sibling tools such as browse_directories or list_assets, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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