markovo_job_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a filtering guarantee ('manifest-verified'), which tells the agent only validated assets are returned, and 'List' implies a read-only operation. It says nothing about behavior for an incomplete job, empty results, pagination, or auth requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource comes first and the scoping conditions follow immediately. Nothing to trim.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a high level and notes the precondition. It leaves out how results are shaped or ordered and what happens when the job is not complete, which for a listing tool is a real gap.

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 0% for the single job_id parameter, so the description must compensate and does not: it gives no hint about the ID's format, source, or whether it is required. 'job_id' is largely self-explanatory, but the gap is left entirely unaddressed.

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+resource ('List ... image assets') with two useful qualifiers: the results are 'manifest-verified' and scoped to a 'completed job'. That is enough to distinguish it from siblings like markovo_asset_url or markovo_bundle_verify, though it never explicitly names a sibling or contrasts scope.

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 phrase 'for a completed job' implies a precondition (the job must be finished, likely requiring markovo_job_status first), but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative is given. Usage is only inferable.

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