List Smithsonian 3D files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by mentioning what metadata is returned (format, quality, compression, orientation). However, it does not describe pagination behavior or rate limits beyond 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 sentence with no fluff, but it omits critical information. Conciseness should not sacrifice clarity or completeness.

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 6 parameters (1 required), many enums, and an output schema, the description fails to explain pagination, filtering, or the relationship between modelId and files. Sibling context suggests this tool is part of a broader ecosystem, but no hints on how it fits.

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 must compensate. It hints at 'format' and 'quality' parameters but does not explain 'cursor', 'limit', 'fileType', 'modelType', or the required 'modelId'. 'Compression' and 'orientation' are not parameters but output fields, adding confusion.

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 action (list files) and resource (Smithsonian Open Access files). It mentions specific metadata types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like smithsonian_search_assets and smithsonian_get_asset. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from non-Smithsonian list tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like asset_list_sources or polyhaven_list_files. The description does not mention prerequisites, filtering, or pagination.

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