get_asset_types

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

The description indicates a read-only listing operation and discloses pagination via the page and per_page arguments. However, it does not clarify behavior such as defaults for pagination, sorting, or any limits. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden but only partially meets it.

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 concise and front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, followed by a minimal Args block. No extraneous information is included, though the docstring format is slightly more structured than necessary.

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's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameters. However, it lacks usage guidance or edge-case information, but this is not critical for a straightforward listing endpoint.

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 description includes an Args section explaining page as 'Page number' and per_page as 'Results per page.' This compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage, adding semantic meaning beyond the parameter names and types.

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 opens with 'List all asset types,' using a specific verb and resource with scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_assets and get_asset_by_id, which target assets rather than asset types.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of use cases, exclusions, or references to sibling tools like get_assets or search_assets.

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