list_assets

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description still adds substantial context: the response envelope {total_rows, results} (valuable since no output schema exists) and an honest disclosure that the query-DSL field names are inferred and may be wrong. That caveat directly prevents an agent from trusting filtered results blindly. It still omits pagination behavior and error semantics for the cursor.

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?

It is short, but the bulk of the text is hedging about inference provenance rather than describing the tool's behavior or inputs. The confirmed-envelope fact is front-loaded well, while the caveat consumes most of the remaining space.

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 five-parameter, zero-coverage, no-output-schema list/search tool, an agent needs to know what is returned, how to page with cursor, and that project_id scopes the search. The description supplies only the envelope shape and a filter caveat, leaving the calling contract substantially incomplete.

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 five parameters (limit, cursor, asset_type, project_id, name_contains) carry no documented meaning in either place. The description hints at filter field names (asset.asset_type / asset.name) that map loosely to asset_type and name_contains, but says nothing about limit, cursor, or project_id, leaving the majority of the schema unexplained.

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 never plainly states that the tool lists/searches assets within a project; it describes the HTTP endpoint it wraps (POST /v2/asset_types/asset/search). The verb+resource is only recoverable by inference from the endpoint path, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like get_asset or create_asset.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to get_asset, create_asset, or list_projects. The only usage-shaped content is a caution to re-verify filter syntax if results look wrong, which is a reliability note rather than routing guidance.

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