list_substance_assets

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It states only that it lists assets, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not disclose scope (e.g., entire project or specific folder), permissions, or any limitations. This is adequate but 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It could be slightly more detailed (e.g., scope), but it is effective and front-loaded with the core 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?

For a parameterless asset-listing tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential information. However, it does not explain whether the listing is recursive, how results are returned, or if it includes metadata. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 (100% coverage of empty schema). The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there are none. The baseline of 3 is applied as 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 action 'List' and the specific resource 'Substance .sbsar and .sbs assets'. It directly distinguishes from the many sibling tools that list other asset types (e.g., list_materials, list_shaders).

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. While the name and description clearly target Substance assets, there is no explicit direction about when to choose this tool over similar listing tools or mention of any exclusions.

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