assets-get-available-asset-packs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the operation and defines asset packs, but does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or limitations. For a read operation, minimal transparency is offered.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence provides useful context. No unnecessary words 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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description reasonably covers the tool's purpose and the nature of asset packs. It mentions that asset packs contain key, URL, and other parameters, which is useful. Minor omission: it could explicitly state the return format (e.g., list of objects).

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information, and the baseline score of 4 applies as per rules.

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 action 'Get all available asset packs in the project.' It specifies the resource (asset packs) and scope (all in project), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'assets-get-available-animations' which target different resource types.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many sibling 'get-available-*' tools, explicit usage context or exclusions would be helpful but are absent.

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