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 burden. It does disclose one important behavioral trait: the tool can either read from cache or force a refresh from InDesign, which may affect performance and freshness. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, potential failure modes when InDesign is unavailable, or output pagination/order. The description adds some context beyond the schema but remains incomplete.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It begins with the action ('List') and immediately specifies the resource and key output fields, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose, the output fields, and the cache/refresh option. It lacks explicit safety guarantees or error semantics, but given the simplicity and the presence of sibling tools, it is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 67%, with timeoutSec lacking a description. The tool description explains 'refresh from InDesign' which partially aligns with the refresh parameter, but the schema already states 'If true, re-read links from InDesign (default: cache)', so the description adds little new meaning. It does not address timeoutSec at all, leaving a gap that the description fails to compensate for.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination: 'List placed links/assets' followed by the output fields (path, status, page). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_missing_links, relink_asset, or list_styles, which focus on specific asset types or mutations.

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 implies when to use the tool—whenever you need to list placed assets—by stating the output fields and the cache/refresh modes. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or mention cases where a sibling tool like check_missing_links would be more appropriate. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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