List Poly Haven asset files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying exact output fields (download URLs, byte sizes, MD5 hashes, file dependencies) and the presence of filters. This helps the agent understand the response structure without contradicting 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, immediately followed by key output details and filter capabilities. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 output schema exists (assumed to document return values), the description does not need to detail them. However, it fails to mention pagination parameters ('limit', 'cursor') and only lightly covers filters. For a tool with 6 parameters and 1 required, the description is slightly incomplete but still adequate for basic 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It only mentions two parameters ('format' and 'resolution') as filters, ignoring 'limit', 'cursor', 'assetId', and 'includeDependencies'. The agent gets no explanation of pagination or how to use the required 'assetId'. This is insufficient for a 6-parameter tool.

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 'download URLs, byte sizes, MD5 hashes, and file dependencies' for a Poly Haven asset, with explicit mention of format and resolution filters. This distinguishes it from siblings like polyhaven_get_asset (which likely gets metadata) and ambientcg_list_files (different source). The verb 'list' and specific resource 'Poly Haven asset' are unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or compare with similar tools like polyhaven_get_asset or asset_list_sources. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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