list_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds a useful constraint that limit is capped at 100 (limitは最大100件です), but it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior beyond offset/limit, or whether the operation is read-only (though 'list' implies this). Some behavioral context is present, but key details are missing.

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 that front-loads the tool's primary purpose and the key limit constraint. Every word earns its place, with no irrelevant filler.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain what the tool returns and how search/pagination work. It only mentions the limit cap, leaving offset semantics, search behavior, and return shape undocumented. This is incomplete for a tool with three parameters and no structured output definition.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the limit parameter (max 100) and leaves offset and search undefined. This adds partial value for one parameter but fails to clarify pagination offset or what the search parameter searches (e.g., asset name, ID, tags).

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 searches and lists assets (資産を検索・一覧表示します), which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_asset (single asset) and list_categories/list_locations (other resource types).

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?

Usage is implied from the tool name and sibling context: use this to search/list assets, while get_asset is for a single asset. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions, so it stops at implied guidance.

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