get_profile_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful access and setup behavior: required API key, need to restart the server, and the fact that the login flow does not unlock this tool. It does not describe the exact return format or error behavior, but for a simple read operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 short sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second clearly labels the access requirements with 'ACCESS:'. Every sentence adds practical information without redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter read tool, the description covers the essential details: what it returns and the required setup. The main gap is not explicitly clarifying how this tool relates to generic asset tools like list_assets, and it does not describe the return structure, though no output schema is provided.

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, and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden for the description. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameters exist and nothing additional 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 clearly identifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('available verified assets that can be displayed on the user's profile'), and further specifies the return value as assets 'eligible for public proof display.' This distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like list_assets or get_asset.

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 provides explicit access prerequisites: a Proof account, setting PROOF_API_KEY, restarting the server, and then calling the tool again. It also warns that start_login does NOT open this tool, which is a useful exclusion. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternative asset-related tools such as list_assets.

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