get_asset_manifest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine context beyond them: it clarifies that the tool yields references (URLs and ZIP paths) rather than downloading media, and that assets are "original public" ones.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope and the download caveat are both immediately visible.

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?

Annotations carry the safety profile and there is no output schema, so the description is not obligated to explain return values, and it does outline the returned URL/ZIP data. However, it leaves the required id parameter undefined, which is a real gap for a tool with a mandatory identifier.

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 single required parameter "id" has 0% schema description coverage and is completely unaddressed in the description. Nothing explains whether the id is a manifest id, template id, or asset id, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 resource ("asset manifest") and enumerates what is returned: poster/video/font asset URLs plus ZIP paths. Clear enough on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the very similar sibling get_asset_source, so an agent must guess which to call.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of the closely related siblings get_asset_source, validate_asset_manifest, or check_media_provenance. The clause "no remote media download" hints at a boundary but never states it as selection criteria.

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