assets_list_stickers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Lists' and 'built-in' imply a static, read-only catalog with no side effects, which is adequate behavioral signaling, but nothing is said about result size, pagination, or whether the listed assets are filtered by anything.

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 front-loaded sentence with no preamble. It is slightly redundant in repeating 'available ... available for insertion', but that is a minor blemish on an otherwise efficient line.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally say what the listing returns (identifiers, names) and how it pairs with sticker_add. It conveys the catalog's nature but stops short of completing the picture for an agent that must then act on the results.

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 surface to document; the schema baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter claims.

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?

Specific verb ('Lists') plus resource ('built-in SVG stickers, badges, and vector elements'), which distinguishes it from siblings like assets_list_patterns, assets_list_stock_pngs, and assets_list_local. The distinguishing attribute is the built-in SVG nature of the assets.

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 by the phrase 'available for insertion' — an agent can infer this is the discovery step before sticker_add. However, no alternative sibling is named and no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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