notory_list_assets

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It notes it is a 'thin wrapper over GET /api/v1/assets', implying a read-only operation, but does not detail pagination behavior, defaults, error handling, or any side effects. This provides minimal context but not a complete picture.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('List assets'), and contains no extraneous information. Every word adds value, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 the tool has 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain expected return values, pagination specifics (e.g., default page size), valid filter values, or how it differs from sibling tools like notory_get_asset. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to use the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 60%, so some parameters (query, status, asset_type) already have descriptions, while page and page_size rely on names. The description groups these into 'optional filters and pagination', adding minimal semantic context beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not clarify the domain-specific meaning or valid values for filters.

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 assets with optional filters and pagination, using the specific verb 'List' and resource 'assets'. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like notory_get_asset, which likely fetches a single asset, but the 'list' vs 'get' distinction is implicit. Thus it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention notory_get_asset or other siblings, nor does it state the intended context (e.g., 'use this to browse multiple assets'). The only implication is that it lists assets, which is a weak signal.

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