apps__background_assets__list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the agent knows the operation is safe and non-destructive. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the endpoint and name already imply; it does not mention pagination, filtering, sorting, or result size limits, which are relevant for a list operation.

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 single sentence that states the purpose and then provides the HTTP endpoint in brackets. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it very concise and easy to parse.

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 description is minimal but sufficient for a simple list operation. However, the tool has 10 parameters including extensive filtering, sorting, and pagination options. The description does not hint at these capabilities, and with no output schema, an agent may not anticipate the complexity of the response or that pagination is needed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding of how to use the parameters effectively.

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 'List the background assets belonging to an app' clearly identifies the verb (List), the resource (background assets), and the scope (belonging to an app). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools and is specific enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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 provides clear context: this tool is for listing background assets that belong to a specific app, using the app ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous and sufficient for most use cases.

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