my_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a useful behavior (flagging asset-safety wraps and undockable structures) and implies a read-only listing, but does not explicitly state safety, data freshness, or permissions. It adds some behavioral context beyond a simple list, but not complete transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then a specific use case and behavioral note. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool is simple with zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main return value (owned assets grouped by location) and a notable feature (flagging). It is sufficient for typical use, though it omits details like pagination or exact format of the output.

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, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline is 4, and the description appropriately does not attempt to explain parameters. It focuses on the meaning of the output, which is useful.

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 clearly states the tool lists everything the logged-in character owns, grouped by location, and specifically mentions the additional capability of flagging asset-safety wraps and undockable structures. This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like lookup_item or recent_losses.

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 a clear use case: 'use this to find stuff stranded from years ago.' It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the use case gives the agent adequate context for selection.

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