assets_list_local

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose that the tool scans the filesystem and defaults to workspace-assets, which implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation. However, it never states that nothing is mutated, nor whether the scan can be slow or is recursive.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and the resource, with the destination directory and purpose following. Slightly overloaded with a four-item noun list ('images, icons, logos, and graphic assets'), but no wasted sentences.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does, where it looks, and what the results are for. Return structure is unspecified, but with no output schema that is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional 'directory' parameter is already documented as defaulting to workspace-assets. The description restates that default but adds no format, relative-vs-absolute path guidance, or recursion behavior beyond the schema.

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+resource: scans and lists local graphic assets in the workspace-assets directory. The word 'local' and the directory scope help separate it from siblings like assets_list_stickers, assets_list_patterns, and assets_list_stock_pngs, though it never names them explicitly.

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 only implied by the trailing phrase 'ready to be placed onto the canvas' – the agent can infer this is the pre-step before adding local assets. There is no statement of when to prefer this over assets_list_stock_pngs or assets_load_from_path, and no exclusions.

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