list_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation and explains the detail parameter's effect on output (short/medium/full), which goes beyond the schema. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify data,' but 'List assets' conveys non-destructive intent.

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 two concise, front-loaded sentences that fully convey purpose and key behavior without redundancy. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the primary needs: what is listed, how to filter, and what the detail levels return. It omits pagination behavior and ordering, but the limit parameter is documented in the schema, so the description is largely complete for a list tool.

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 high (83%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the detail parameter's meaning (short=id+type+name, medium=key fields, full=raw) beyond the schema's enum descriptions. It also enumerates filterable fields, reinforcing parameter usage even though it does not explain every parameter.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'List assets in the brand's visual library', clearly stating the tool's function and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like view_asset (single asset) and upload_asset (creation) by emphasizing listing and filtering.

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 what the tool does and its filtering capabilities (by type, tags, search text), giving clear context for when it would be appropriate to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like view_asset, but the listing/filtering framing implies the intended use case.

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