list_assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that entries come back with ids and URLs and that URLs are consumable by pages, banners, maps and events. It says nothing about pagination or the 1000-item ceiling implied by the limit parameter.

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 core action and the payload contents. The second sentence is tangent-adjacent but earns its place by telling the agent why the returned URLs matter, sparing it a follow-up lookup.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source of return-value information; it partially fills that void with 'ids and URLs' but omits pagination, folder nesting, and result ordering. For a read-only listing tool with annotations covering safety, this is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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 67%, with project and folder_id documented in the schema (including a list_projects cross-reference) and only limit undocumented. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own and does not clarify limit's default/range behavior, so it hovers at the minimum-viable baseline.

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 (List) and a precise resource (the world's asset library), and enumerates what that library contains (uploaded images, maps, folders). An agent can tell this apart from create_resource, upload_image, or browse_tree without opening schemas, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 never says when to call this instead of search, browse_tree, or list_projects. The closing note that image URLs can be used in pages/banners/maps implies a downstream workflow but gives no selection criteria or prerequisites.

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