list_asset_proxies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says only that it lists proxy files; it does not disclose whether it returns metadata, whether it requires asset access permissions, whether it includes all versions, how pagination works, or what the response shape is. For a listing operation this is a meaningful gap.

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 communicating the core purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a list tool, though it lacks the behavioral detail that would make it more valuable.

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 description adequately conveys the core operation and the schema covers both parameters. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no mention of return value/pagination/permissions, an agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior. For a simple list tool this is a minimum-viable definition, not a complete one.

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 the schema already documents asset_id ('The asset UUID') and version_id ('Filter by version (optional)'). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema states; the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the documentation burden.

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 "List all proxy files for an asset" clearly identifies the verb (list), resource (proxy files), and scope (for an asset). It distinguishes the tool from get_asset_proxy (singular retrieval) and from list_asset_versions/list_asset_formats, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 implies usage: call when you need all proxy files associated with an asset. However, it offers no when-not-to-use guidance and does not distinguish between this tool and the closely related get_asset_proxy, list_asset_formats, or list_asset_files. An agent must infer the boundary from sibling names.

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