list_code_assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantive behavior: it is free, reads metadata only, never opens an asset, and that asset bodies cost quota. The cost/quota disclosure is genuinely new information that shapes agent behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then cost note, then args in a clean block. The alias enumeration is long but justified for vocabulary mapping; a stray 'this lists them all' is minor redundancy.

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 free list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (notebooks, saved queries, data canvases) and the cost profile. It stops short of describing the return shape or pagination, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0% and no enums are declared, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it supplies the enum values ('sql', 'notebook', 'data_canvas') absent from the schema, explains name_contains is case-insensitive, and gives the rationale for asset_type (row-volume filtering). This is meaning well 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 (List) and resource (Colab notebooks and saved queries / code assets) with explicit scope. It collapses several user-facing terms into the single BigQuery Studio concept, so an agent can map user vocabulary to this tool without ambiguity.

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?

Clearly signals when to use it ('Use this for anything the user calls a Colab notebook...') and sequences it against the open step ('filter here first and open individual assets afterwards'), implicitly routing to get_code_asset. No explicit when-not or named exclusion of siblings, so not a full 5.

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