list_asset_formats

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

Because no annotations are provided, the description bears the burden of indicating behavior. It clearly implies a read-only listing operation and gives example values, but it does not disclose return shape, possible errors, pagination, or authentication requirements. The description is not misleading but adds only limited behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It leads with the action and the examples are parenthetically useful. Every part contributes value.

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 simple list tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient to let an agent understand the basic purpose. No return value explanation is required since there is no output schema. A minor gap is the absence of any mention of the optional version_id filter in the description, but the schema covers it.

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%: both asset_id and version_id have meaningful descriptions, including that version_id is an optional filter. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, merely restating the asset context for formats. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 action ('List') and a specific resource ('formats') with concrete examples ('ORIGINAL, PROXY, etc.'). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like get_asset_format or list_asset_versions.

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 no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as list_asset_proxies or get_asset_format, and it states no exclusions or conditions. For example, it does not mention that get_asset_format retrieves a specific format or that list_asset_proxies focuses on proxies only.

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