list_assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with that. It adds real context beyond the annotations: the return payload centers on asset ids, the media types covered, and the key limitation that the agent cannot upload files. It does not describe pagination, ordering, or what happens when no assets exist.

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 resource and purpose, then the usage rule, then the limitation. No redundant wording; every clause carries information.

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?

A simple read-only listing tool with no output schema, and the description covers what it returns (ids) and why to call it. The gap is the undocumented parameters, which is minor for an all-optional, generic-looking parameter set.

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?

Three parameters (requestId, sessionId, expectedRevision) exist at 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about any of them, so an agent gets no meaning beyond the bare type declarations. It does not compensate for the coverage gap, though all parameters are optional boilerplate.

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 uploaded media assets') and narrows scope to image/video/audio, plus notes the ids are returned. It distinguishes itself from add_layer by describing the lookup role, though it never names import_asset, which is the closest sibling in the upload space.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it: to obtain a valid assetId before calling add_layer with type=image/video/audio. The trailing 'AI cannot upload files' implicitly rules out using this to add media, but the alternative (import_asset) is not named, so the exclusion stays implicit.

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