zest_list_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it states this returns a list, names the return fields, and flags the mainnet-only constraint. It does not explicitly call out read-only/non-destructive behavior, but the listing nature makes that clear and the mainnet note is the key behavioral caveat.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then return shape, supported assets, and a mainnet caveat. It is mostly efficient, though the hardcoded supported-asset list may become stale and is somewhat redundant with the return description.

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?

No parameters and no output schema, but the description explains what the return contains (symbol, name, contract ID), which assets are supported, and that the protocol is mainnet-only. That is sufficient for an agent to decide whether and how to call this simple discovery tool. Minor gap: it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, though listing makes that clear.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on scope and return shape instead.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: list all supported assets on Zest Protocol, scoped to v0-4-market. The purpose is unmistakable and distinct from sibling mutation tools like zest_supply or zest_borrow, though it does not explicitly name those siblings for contrast.

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?

Usage is implied as a discovery step before supplying, borrowing, or using collateral, and the note that Zest is mainnet-only is a useful precondition. The tip to call earning_opportunities gives a follow-on action, but the description never explicitly says when to use this versus zest_get_position or the supply/borrow tools.

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