uselink_list_assets

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation via the verb 'List' and specifies the return type (images, files). However, it does not disclose pagination behavior (limit/offset), return format, or any potential side effects. For a list operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It earns its place, but it could be slightly more informative without bloating. It is not overly verbose, scoring well on conciseness, though not perfect due to missing parameter 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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters. The description is too minimal to be complete: it does not mention pagination (limit/offset), the requirement for document_id, or what the response structure looks like. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description leaves many important operational details unaddressed.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its three parameters. The description adds minimal meaning: it clarifies that assets are 'attached to a document,' which maps to the required document_id parameter. However, it does not explain limit/offset or their roles, so the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 the tool's function: 'List assets (images, files) attached to a document.' It uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('assets'), and a qualifier ('attached to a document') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like uselink_list_documents (lists documents) and uselink_list_comments (lists comments).

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 implies usage: it is for retrieving assets belonging to a specific document. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., uploading assets with uselink_upload_asset) or any exclusions. The context is implied but not spelled out.

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