List review assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the response shape (name, stored name, served url, bytes, ctype), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or behavior when no assets are attached. With annotations carrying the safety bar, a 3 fits.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero preamble waste; the parenthetical field list is dense but earns its place by substituting for a missing output schema. Slightly terse, but nothing is redundant.

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, the field enumeration fills the main information gap for a simple one-parameter read tool. Missing only minor operational detail such as ordering or behavior on an empty asset set.

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 100% and the single id parameter is documented as "the opaque review id". The description reinforces that assets belong to a review, matching that parameter, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("List a review's attached assets") and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the write-side sibling attach_asset, but the read semantics are clear.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as attach_asset or get_review. The agent must infer that this is the read counterpart used before or after attaching assets.

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