lw_list_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a read-only list operation returning specific asset details. There is no mention of side effects, rate limits, or destructive behavior, which is appropriate for this simple list 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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating what the tool does and providing a usage scenario. 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's simple nature (single optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient information about its purpose and return fields. It could optionally mention that the list is from the public asset registry, but it is complete enough for effective use.

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 input schema already covers the network parameter with 100% description coverage and an enum. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, achieving the baseline score.

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 known Liquid assets and specifies the returned fields (asset_id, ticker, name, precision). It also distinguishes itself by mentioning a use case with lw_send_asset, which differentiates it from sibling tools like lw_balance.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool to resolve asset IDs for lw_send_asset without a prior balance query, providing clear context. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios, but the guidance is sufficient.

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