assets.list

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which inform the agent that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the detail that artifacts are 'downloadable', which implies a property of the returned items. However, it does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or error handling, so a 3 is given as it adds some value beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, earning a top score.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and the annotations cover safety, the description is fairly complete. It could specify the return format (e.g., list of asset names) but for a simple listing tool, it is sufficient. A 4 is reasonable.

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?

There are no parameters in the input schema, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters. Following the guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4.

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 the resource 'downloadable doctrine and agent asset artifacts'. It distinguishes this from sibling list tools like clusters.list, guides.list, etc. However, the terms 'doctrine' and 'agent asset artifacts' are specific and may not be immediately clear without domain knowledge, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 versus alternatives such as guides.list or principles.list. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage, leaving the agent to infer from the resource name alone.

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