list_assets

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the registry is in-memory, ephemeral, clears on restart, and records expire after a configurable TTL. It also states the default ordering (newest-first). The description is transparent about the tool's behavior, though it could explicitly note it is a read-only operation.

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 three sentences—first for purpose and ordering, second for registration context, third for lifecycle details. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the tool's context: what assets are, how they appear, their temporal limitations, and ordering. It is informative for an agent to understand the tool's role. Could be improved by stating the return format, but not essential for a list operation.

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 100% for both parameters (limit and since). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and the description does not add extra semantics.

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 'List recently generated assets from the in-memory registry, newest-first.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the ordering is explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_output_images by focusing on the general asset registry.

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 explains when assets are registered ('automatically when a workflow completes successfully') and their lifecycle (ephemeral, TTL). While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to call this tool.

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