list_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only pointers are returned and warns about untrusted content, adding important behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, though 'list' implies that.

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 very concise, with two short paragraphs and a clear args section. The purpose is front-loaded immediately, and every sentence adds value without 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 the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, parameter format, and behavioral notes. However, it omits potential details like pagination or ordering for the list, which might be relevant but are less critical.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'target' can be a stream/thread id or a note id in the format 'note-N', adding meaningful format guidance beyond the schema's plain string type. It does not explicitly mention that the parameter is required, but the schema covers that.

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 tool lists assets attached to a stream/thread or note, and specifies that it returns pointers only, not contents. This is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like add_asset or remove_asset, which would improve clarity.

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 advises that following an asset is a separate step and warns about treating remote URLs as untrusted, which provides some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_asset or search, nor does it exclude use cases.

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