List Assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. The description indicates it's a read operation listing items with metadata, which implies non-destructive behavior. However, it doesn't disclose whether the list is paginated, ordered, or if authentication is required. A score of 3 is appropriate as it conveys basic read behavior but lacks depth.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the data it returns. Every word contributes meaning, with no wasted content. It is optimally 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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate but minimal information. It explains what is listed and what metadata is included, but lacks details on pagination, sorting, or authentication. For such a simple tool, the description is sufficient to understand its core function, but not thoroughly complete.

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 no parameters and 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details since there are none, but it explains what metadata is returned (type, line, target throughput), providing some value beyond the empty schema.

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 all machines/production lines with their metadata. It specifies the verb 'list' and resource 'machines / production lines', and distinguishes itself from siblings that focus on production queries, downtime, throughput, and anomalies.

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 or situations where one of the sibling tools would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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