list_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'with pagination' and does not state that this is a read-only operation, how results are returned, default sort/order behavior, or how pagination actually behaves beyond the schema parameters. The description adds minimal 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler: 'List all assets with pagination' conveys the core operation and the distinguishing feature efficiently.

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 fully documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the response shape and the boundary against search_assets implicit, so a bit more context would make it complete.

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%: page, per_page, sort, and order all have descriptions and defaults. The description adds only the pagination context and does not need to repeat parameter details, so the baseline score 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 states a clear verb-resource pair ('list assets') and adds the pagination qualifier, so an agent can tell this is a paginated listing of assets rather than a single-asset retrieval. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_assets or list_asset_versions, so it loses a point on differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like search_assets, search_faceted, and list_asset_versions, the description should indicate that this is for unfiltered, paginated listing of all assets, but it offers only the generic 'List all assets' statement.

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