list_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. Beyond 'list' implying a read, it discloses nothing about safety, permissions, ordering of results, absolute vs relative paths, or what happens when limit/pagination is exhausted — all of which the schema's defaults imply but the prose never explains.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is perhaps thinner than ideal for a tool with six parameters and no annotations.

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?

For a low-complexity read tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the return shape (paths, ordering, whether entries are absolute or project-relative) entirely unspecified.

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 limit/offset/subdir/recursive/extensions are all documented in the schema itself. The description's mention of 'extension filter and paging' merely echoes two of those parameters and adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond the schema.

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+resource ('List files inside a Godot project') and names the filtering capabilities (extension filter, paging). It is clearly distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like create_scene or save_scene, though it never differentiates itself from list_projects or get_project_info.

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 only implied by the phrase 'with optional extension filter and paging' — an agent can infer you use this to enumerate project assets, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g. list_projects, get_project_info) and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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