list_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions using the Cloud Asset Inventory API and lists page_size with a max of 1000, which implies pagination, but it does not disclose permission requirements, potential rate limits, cost implications, or whether all asset types are returned if no filter is provided. The read-only nature is implied by 'List' but not explicitly stated.

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 core description is a single front-loaded sentence, which is good. However, the Args and Returns sections largely duplicate schema information and the Returns line adds little value. It is somewhat over-specified for an experienced user but not excessively verbose.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate. It provides parameter details and a basic return type, but it lacks usage guidance, potential side effects, or any caveats about the Cloud Asset Inventory API. This is adequate for a simple list operation but leaves gaps around when to use it and what to expect in terms of data scope.

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?

Although schema description coverage is reported as 0%, the description includes an Args section that thoroughly explains each parameter beyond the schema. For project_id it defines the purpose, for asset_types it gives an example and notes it's a filter, and for page_size it specifies default and max values. This significantly adds meaning to the raw 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?

The description starts with 'List assets in a GCP project using Cloud Asset Inventory API', which uses a specific verb (list) and resource (assets via Cloud Asset Inventory). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_compute_instances or list_storage_buckets, which target specific resource types.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or specify that this is the broad asset discovery tool while other list tools are for specific resource types. The description simply states what it does without providing decision criteria.

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