list_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions listing assets in specific directories but does not disclose if the operation is read-only, safe, or requires any special permissions. The behavioral traits beyond the basic action are not described.

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 sentence that immediately states the action and scope. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word is necessary. There is no wasted content.

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 should provide more context. It does not specify the output format (e.g., list of file names, paths), whether it is recursive, or how errors are handled. For a list tool, this missing information hinders proper usage.

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 parameter schema has 0% description coverage. However, the description mentions 'img and audio directories', which partially explains the 'assetType' parameter (values img and audio). The 'projectPath' parameter is not explained at all. The description adds some meaning beyond the schema but is incomplete.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'assets in img and audio directories', making the purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'check_assets_integrity' which performs a different 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. For instance, it does not explain when to use 'list_assets' compared to 'check_assets_integrity' or other file-related tools. The description lacks any usage context.

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