List User Assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the caller-scoping context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response format, pagination defaults, or handling of shared assets. The schema descriptions for has_trigger/has_schedule reveal subtle exclusions, but that is in structured fields, not the description itself.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose ('List the caller's user assets'), immediately followed by the key capabilities. Zero wasted words; every phrase earns its place.

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 read-only nature, excellent annotations, and fully described parameters, the description is almost sufficient. It lacks an explicit statement of the return shape (what fields appear in the list), but since no output schema exists and the resource type is well-known, this is a minor gap. The 'etc.' in the type list introduces slight ambiguity about what asset types are included.

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 100%, so all 16 parameters are already well-documented. The description's mention of 'filtering, sorting, and pagination' is a high-level summary that adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('List'), the resource ('the caller's user assets'), and explicitly includes asset types (agents, folders, workflows, etc.). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like lyzr_list_agents and lyzr_list_org_agents by scoping to the caller's own assets.

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?

The description provides clear context about when to use the tool (listing the caller's own user assets), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases. It implies usage through the 'caller's' scoping, which separates it from org-level or agent-specific list tools.

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