List world assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses auto-pagination and the output format ('one line per asset with its id'), which are useful beyond the schema. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention error/edge-case behavior (e.g., empty list), leaving a small gap.

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 tight three sentences: purpose, behavior/output, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the main action, includes the most important extra details, and contains no filler or redundant phrases.

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 is simple with only 2 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the resource types, pagination, and return format, and points to sibling tools for related operations. It is mostly complete, though a note about what happens with no assets or error conditions would make it fully robust.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the enum options (e.g., 'secrets (GM-only notes)', 'subscribergroups (player visibility groups)'), which the schema enum lacks. This enriches the meaning of the 'kind' parameter without repeating the schema verbatim.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List a world's non-article resources', then enumerates the resource types (secrets, maps, timelines, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from related tools by pointing to 'list_articles' for articles and 'get_asset' for reading a single asset.

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 says 'Use get_asset to read one in full' and 'For articles use list_articles instead', providing clear when-to-use vs alternatives. Also mentions 'Auto-paginates' to set expectations for large results.

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