get_assets_updated_since_last_sync

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It explains the core logic (returns changed asset ids, fallback behavior) and implies a read-only operation, but does not mention potential caveats like whether trashed/deleted assets are included, pagination, or permission requirements beyond what's in the schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary behavior followed by a use case. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple read-only sync helper with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and use case. It lacks some details like the exact response format (though 'asset ids' implies a list) and whether pagination exists, but it is reasonably complete given the tool's simplicity and the schema's full coverage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one useful detail—the specific server-tracked field name 'last_external_sync_at'—but does not elaborate on any_user or created_via, which are already documented in the schema.

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 the tool's function: it returns asset ids changed since a timestamp, with a specific fallback to the server-tracked last_external_sync_at. It also labels itself as a sync helper and suggests its use for export/mirror jobs, distinguishing it from general asset search or retrieval tools.

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?

It explicitly mentions the tool is useful for export/mirror jobs, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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