LightCMS

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the scope ('all assets') and defining asset types, but omits pagination behavior, default limits, or error handling when the folder parameter doesn't exist.

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?

Two efficient sentences with no redundancy. The first establishes the operation; the second clarifies the resource type. Could slightly improve by mentioning the optional folder filter in the main sentence.

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?

Adequate for a simple read operation with one optional parameter and strong annotations. Missing description of return value structure or pagination behavior, which would be necessary for complete agent understanding given no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the optional folder filter. The description implies filtering is optional by stating 'List all assets,' but adds no semantic details about path formats or wildcard support beyond the schema's example.

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 ('List') and resource ('assets'), and defines what constitutes an asset ('files like images, documents, CSS, JS'), helping distinguish from sibling list_asset_folders. However, it lacks explicit contrast with get_asset (single vs. bulk retrieval).

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 provided on when to use this versus get_asset for retrieving a single asset, or whether pagination applies. No mention of performance considerations for large asset libraries.

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