list_drawing_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral details. It reveals that assets are 'representation-only' and 'do not participate in room collision checks unless explicitly registered,' which is useful context. However, it lacks details on pagination, sorting, or potential side effects.

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 two sentences, immediately stating the action and resource. No extraneous information, front-loaded with the verb 'lists.' It earns its place without waste.

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 three optional parameters and an output schema, the description provides context about asset types and behavior but omits parameter guidance. With output schema present, return values are covered, but the description could be more complete regarding filtering.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain any of the three parameters (limit, offset, category). While the schema provides defaults, the description adds no meaning beyond that, leaving the agent to infer category usage.

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 it lists 'representation-only entourage and graphic proxy assets,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_diagram_assets or list_ikea_furniture. It specifies these assets are intentionally isolated from IKEA product search, which clarifies the scope.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for listing drawing-specific assets but omits when-not-to-use or mentions of sibling tools for comparison.

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