asset_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('list') but does not explicitly state that, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or return behavior. The lack of detail on pagination, filtering, or error conditions leaves the agent without key information.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, which is efficient in terms of verbosity. However, it is under-specified to the point of being almost a placeholder. Conciseness is good, but it sacrifices necessary substance, making it only average in this dimension.

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 tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what 'provenance' means, what the response format is, any limits or edge cases, or how this tool fits into a workflow. The agent is left with too many unknowns.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain the 'project_id' parameter at all. The agent must infer its meaning solely from the name, which is insufficient for a required parameter. No format, purpose, or relationship to the output is provided.

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 states a clear verb ('list') and resource ('project assets and provenance'), which gives a basic sense of purpose. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like 'catalog_inventory' or 'asset_import', which could also involve listing assets. The mention of 'provenance' adds specificity but is ambiguous without elaboration.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description is purely declarative and offers no context about typical use cases or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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