list_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does reveal that results include both assets and the lineage DAG and that every filter is optional. It omits pagination/result-size limits and any permission or read-safety statement, which matter for a 'list all' tool.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the operation and scope, with the filtering note trailing. No 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 read-only list tool with five optional params and no output schema, the description covers scope and filters adequately. The remaining gap is return-shape/volume expectations for the lineage DAG payload.

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; it names four of the five filters (type, status, approval_state, tag) but uses 'type' while the schema key is 'asset_type'. The fifth parameter, 'project' (default 'default'), is only implied by the phrase 'in a Forge project'.

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?

Specific verb 'List' plus resource 'all assets and the lineage DAG' scoped to 'a Forge project'. It is naturally distinguishable from the singular sibling get_asset, though it never names that sibling explicitly to reinforce the split.

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 word 'optionally filtered' implies when to pass filters, but nothing states when to use list_assets versus get_asset, list_asset_wishlist, or find_placeholders. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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