List assets in a folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: assets are flat, there is no global search, and listing is confined to one folder (not recursive). It does not mention pagination or response shape, but for a read-only list operation the added constraints are valuable.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the purpose is front-loaded, the root convention is stated, and the no-search navigation caveat is included. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple, has complete schema documentation, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. The description adds the key non-obvious context (flat assets, no search, need to walk folders) that an agent needs to use it correctly. It omits only optional details like result limits or exact return shape, which are minor for a list operation.

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% parameter description coverage: kind is fully explained and folder_id explains root behavior and provenance. The description echoes the folder root concept ('Folder 0 is the root') but does not add substantive parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Lists the images and files in one asset folder') and immediately clarifies that folder 0 is the root. It also distinguishes list_assets from list_asset_folders by explaining that assets are flat and finding one requires walking folders.

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 gives clear context: this lists one folder, folders are navigated via list_asset_folders, and there is no search across assets. It does not explicitly state 'use list_assets when you need files in a known folder vs. list_asset_folders to enumerate folders,' but the intended usage is strongly implied.

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