List assets

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'READ-ONLY' and adds 'Required scope: basics:read', providing additional behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences with no fluff. Every part adds value—resource definition, optional filter, pagination, scope, and read-only status.

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, the description covers key aspects: assets scope, optional filter, pagination, and required scope. The return format is not described, but for a list tool this is adequate.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds the phrase 'optionally filtered by owner' reflecting person_id, but this is not significantly beyond the schema's own description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists company assets with examples (laptops, phones, badges) and an optional filter by owner. It distinguishes from sibling list tools (e.g., list_people, list_vehicles) by the resource type.

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?

The description indicates optional filtering by owner and zero-indexed pagination, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tools are for different resources, but no direct comparison or exclusion is provided.

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