List assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are scoped to the user's own uploads, but says nothing about ordering, result caps, pagination, or whether an empty result is possible — real gaps for a listing tool even with annotations present.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, with zero filler. The brevity borders on under-specification rather than waste, so it is efficient but leaves obvious value unstated.

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 read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, the essentials are present, but with no output schema the description is the only place an agent could learn what the response looks like (asset objects, IDs, pagination) — and it does not say. Adequate, not complete.

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 only 50%: fileType carries an inline description with its allowed values, while projectId has none. The description partially compensates by calling projectId an optional filter, but never explains what a project ID represents here or that filters combine (AND) rather than replace each other.

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 and resource ("List the user's uploaded assets") with the ownership scope made explicit, which separates it from list_projects and list_brand_kits by resource type. It stops short of naming a sibling or clarifying how it differs from the other list_* tools, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

"Optional projectId filter" implies the scoping use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, no mention of when to prefer the fileType filter, and no note about whether all assets are returned unpaginated. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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