list_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it states the output shape per kind (path node for icons, group node for collages, style patch for text_styles/filter_presets) and the default behavior without kind. It omits anything about result caps or pagination for large asset sets, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every clause maps to a distinct kind value, so little is wasted. The single dense block with nested parentheticals is harder to scan than a short bulleted breakdown would be.

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?

For a 6-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema catalog tool, it covers return shape, default behavior, and per-kind parameter relevance. What it leaves unsaid is volume/pagination behavior and whether results are cached or static.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds which kind each parameter applies to (query/ids for icons and decorations, category only for decorations, pageWidth/pageHeight only for collages), tying parameters to concrete tasks rather than restating names.

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?

A specific verb+resource (查内置素材与样式清单) followed by a full enumeration of the kind values and what each returns. The agent can tell exactly what this tool lists and how it differs from siblings like add_decorations or list_templates.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent per use case: decorations are placed with add_decorations, icon examples go straight into node/insert-children, text_styles/filter_presets patches feed node/update-style. It also documents the no-kind default (returns per-category counts and usage) as a discovery path.

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