List Assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the list includes managed storage usage and estimated monthly USD cost, single-asset mode returns `files` and usage locations, and null `size_bytes`/`file_count` signals an unmeasured linked source.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying distinct information, front-loaded with the list-vs-single distinction. Slightly dense with inline formatting but no filler.

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 rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the remaining burden: scope, filters, workspace defaulting, null-value semantics, and what each mode returns. Pagination omission is the only real gap and is partially mitigated by the output schema.

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 must carry parameter meaning, and it explains only `asset`, `asset_type`, `status`, and `workspace`. `limit` and `cursor` are never mentioned, leaving pagination undocumented, and the parameter is called `asset` in the schema but `asset_id` in the description, a naming mismatch that could mislead.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the Asset Hub assets') and enumerates the entity types covered (datasets, models, adapters, outputs). It also clearly separates the two modes: a workspace-scoped list vs. a single-asset lookup by `asset_id`.

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?

Gives actionable routing: filter with `asset_type` or `status`, take `workspace` from the workspaces tool, and omit `workspace` when the user has only one. It lacks an explicit when-not/alternative statement (e.g. versus import_asset or storages), but the usage conditions are concrete.

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