list_diagram_assets

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention pagination, authentication, or any side effects. It only states the basic function, leaving significant behavioral aspects (e.g., rate limits, data freshness, response structure) undocumented.

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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure (e.g., no bullet points, no separation of concerns). It is minimally adequate but could be more informative without being longer by using structured formatting.

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 parameters and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not address typical use cases, the meaning of parameters, or how this list differs from search or list functions. The presence of an output schema does not excuse the lack of input and usage context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters, the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. It does not explain 'limit', 'offset', or 'category' – for instance, what category values are valid or how offset works. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 verb 'Lists' and the resource 'diagram assets' with examples (people, trees, symbols), making the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_diagram_assets', which also deals with diagram assets. The purpose is clear but not fully contextualized among siblings.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_diagram_assets' or 'list_drawing_assets'. There is no mention of prerequisites, expected contexts, or exclusions. The description only implies basic usage with no comparative or conditional advice.

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