list_assemblies

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

The description indicates a read-only list operation without side effects, but lacks any mention of permissions, performance, or constraints. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and is minimal.

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?

Single sentence with no redundant information. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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 no parameters, output schema, or annotations, the description is complete enough for a simple list tool. It specifies exactly what is listed, though it could mention if the output is an array or any formatting.

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 input schema has no parameters, so coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not add parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline 3 applies per guidelines.

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 assembly definitions (.asmdef) with specific fields (path, name, references, platforms), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_asmdef_references by including the fields.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_asmdef_references or other list tools. The description implies a simple listing but does not provide context for selection.

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