get_asset_library

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'deterministic' and 'compact results,' which hints at predictable behavior, but it does not disclose limitations, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'compact results' actually means (e.g., no full metadata). This is a search tool, likely safe, but the description doesn't clarify whether it returns a list or a summary.

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 a single sentence, efficient, and front-loads the core action. It has no filler, though it could be slightly more specific about the result format, but it remains appropriately concise.

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 has 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain what results look like, how parameters interact, or any usage nuances. The presence of many sibling tools calls for more disambiguation, which is missing.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description adds no meaning to 'limit', 'query', or 'category' beyond their names, which are self-explanatory but could benefit from format details (e.g., query syntax, category naming). It fails to compensate for the absence of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('deterministic asset/preset library') and mentions the result type ('compact results'), which is clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from very similar siblings like 'get_asset_library_item' or 'summarize_asset_library', so it's not a 5.

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 implies this is for searching the library, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_asset_library_item' (which likely fetches a specific item) or 'get_tools_search' (which searches tools, not assets). No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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