list_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it lists assets but does not mention that the default 'recursive' parameter is true (affecting results), nor any side effects, limitations, or pagination. Minimal behavioral insight beyond the basic action.

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 relatively short (two sentences plus Args), but the Args section is formatted as bullet-like lines that could be more integrated. The first sentence is front-loaded and clear, though the structure is adequate but not optimally concise.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description fails to clarify key behaviors like recursive listing, return format (e.g., asset names or full paths), or if there are limits. Given the complexity and many sibling tools, it lacks sufficient detail for an agent to confidently decide when to invoke this tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially by explaining 'path' and 'class_filter' with examples. However, it omits the 'recursive' parameter entirely, which is crucial for understanding scope. Only 2 of 3 parameters are described, leading to incomplete guidance.

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 states the verb 'List' and resource 'assets in a Content Browser directory,' with examples for path and class_filter. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'find_assets' (which likely searches across multiple directories), though it doesn't explicitly mention the distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as when to use 'find_assets' instead. It lacks context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without direction.

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