list_lottie_assets

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic 'list' operation. It fails to mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens if no assets exist, or any performance implications.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, but slightly more detail (e.g., scope or result format) could improve structure without verbosity.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what fields the returned assets contain, whether there are any filters, or how to interpret the list. A listing tool typically benefits from describing return format or scope.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed. A higher score is justified because the tool requires no configuration.

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 Lottie-related JSON assets' clearly identifies the action (list) and the resource type (Lottie-related JSON assets), distinguishing it from other list_* sibling tools targeting different asset categories.

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_assets_by_extension or list_animation_clips. The description lacks context about when Lottie assets are relevant or how they differ from other JSON assets.

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