accelo_list_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses pagination details (page is 0-indexed, limit max 100), search scope, filter keys, and asset relationship context. However, it does not state that this is a read-only list operation, does not describe the return structure or pagination metadata, and does not mention auth or rate-limit behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by useful domain context and a structured Args list. The asset explanation is somewhat lengthy but earns its place by clarifying what an asset is; the parameter list is well organized and skimmable.

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 five-parameter list tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers invocation parameters and domain context well. It is still incomplete for output shape, pagination metadata, auth/rate-limit behavior, and routing to sibling tools like accelo_count_assets or accelo_get_asset.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents filters with specific keys, fields with an example, search over title, page indexing, and the limit maximum. It adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not specify value formats for filter keys, standing enums, against_type options, or default ordering.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List assets from Accelo.' It further clarifies that assets are flexible trackable items linked to companies, jobs, issues, prospects, or contracts. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as accelo_count_assets or accelo_get_asset, but the list vs. get/count distinction is clear from the verb.

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 explains what assets are but gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing this tool over accelo_get_asset or accelo_count_assets, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and 'List assets.'

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