design_list_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. 'List' reasonably implies a non-destructive read and 'embedded in the current sketch' scopes the result set, but it says nothing about return contents (IDs, names, dimensions?), whether linked versus embedded assets are included, or any ordering — meaningful gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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 no filler. Every word carries information (verb, resource, scope), and there is nothing to trim without losing meaning.

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 simple zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed and where, which is the core requirement. It is nonetheless thin on prerequisites (must a sketch be selected?), result shape, and what happens when the sketch contains no assets, leaving the agent to discover these at call time.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering arguments are accepted and that the sketch context comes from editor state rather than an argument.

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 (List) and specific resource (image assets embedded in the current sketch), with scope narrowed to the active sketch. It does not name or distinguish itself from other enumeration siblings such as design_list_layers, design_list_shapes, or design_list_fonts, so an agent must infer separation from the resource noun alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'current sketch' signals that a sketch must be open and active, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., a library or workspace asset listing tool). The agent is left to infer call conditions.

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