List library

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) and adds behavioral details: it's free, read-only, returns served URLs, and includes asset kind, model, and age. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the purpose and scope, and the second provides key behavioral details. Excellent conciseness.

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 low complexity, full schema coverage, annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns (served URLs, kind, model, age) and how to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters 'kind' and 'limit'. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema documents parameters fully.

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 browses the workspace's Library, listing images/videos generated in the Studio, newest first. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like fetch_asset by indicating that returned served URLs can be used directly or handed to fetch_asset for download.

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 explains when to use this tool versus alternatives: it returns served URLs for direct access or for passing to fetch_asset for download. It also notes it's free and read-only, providing clear context for usage.

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