List assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the content taxonomy but says nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior, total counts, or what an empty gallery returns — details an agent would need when iterating pages.

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?

A single compact sentence with the main idea front-loaded and no filler. The trailing parenthetical is dense and the ellipsis after 'video …' signals an incomplete value list, which is slightly sloppy but not wasteful.

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?

With six parameters, zero schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should explain filtering and paging semantics. It instead covers roughly two of six parameters and leaves result shape, ordering, and pagination entirely unaddressed, which is thin for the tool's complexity.

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 carries the full burden, and it only partially discharges it. It clarifies type (image | video | audio) and gives meaningful values for category (generated | ecommerce | model | context | video), but page, limit, favorite and projectId receive no explanation at all.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Browse the account gallery') and enumerates what lives there: generated images/videos, uploaded products, testimonials. That lets an agent distinguish it from a fetch-by-id sibling such as vivid_get_asset, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with vivid_list_references or vivid_list_projects.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. 'Browse' implies exploration rather than lookup, but the description never says to prefer this over vivid_list_references when hunting for reference material, or over vivid_get_asset when an id is already known.

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