List Digital Asset Scan launch assets

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the catalog is 'neutral', 'unranked', and 'does not imply endorsement', which is important for an agent deciding whether these assets represent a recommended or prioritized set. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads what the tool returns, and the second adds necessary caveats. Every clause earns its place.

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 parameterless, read-only listing tool with rich annotations, this description is complete. It states the resource, scope, count, neutrality, and discovery-only nature; no critical detail appears missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to clarify. No parameter documentation is needed, and the baseline of 4 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('canonical API's neutral 20-asset launch catalog'), and adds qualifiers ('discovery-only', 'unranked') that make the tool's scope clear. This meaningfully distinguishes list_assets from siblings like analyze_asset and get_methodology.

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 gives clear usage context by framing the catalog as 'discovery-only', signaling this is a lightweight listing/browsing operation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is strong enough to guide an agent.

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