list_assets

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List project assets (images, files)', which provides no information about side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or pagination. This is insufficient for an agent to understand behavioral traits.

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 concise sentence that is easy to parse and front-loaded. It wastes no words, though it could benefit from including parameter context without sacrificing brevity.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema, the description is still too minimal. It does not mention the return format, how to interpret results, or any ordering/limiting behavior. Siblings like delete_asset suggest asset management context, but the description fails to capitalize on that.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the project_id parameter. While the description implies assets belong to a project, it adds no specific semantics about the parameter's format, constraints, or role beyond what the schema already shows.

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 uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'project assets (images, files)', clearly indicating the action and object. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_asset and upload_asset by focusing on listing. However, it does not mention the required project_id parameter, which is critical context for the action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_asset or upload_asset. The description does not specify any prerequisites or scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage context entirely from the tool name and siblings.

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