List assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully notes that ids are surfaced, but adds nothing about pagination, filtering, ordering, or whether the result is exhaustive.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the key information front-loaded. It is terse to the point of omitting scope details, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool, the description covers the essentials: what is listed and that ids are returned. With no output schema, it carries the return-value burden and mostly succeeds, though the shape of the listing is not described.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% on an empty object, and the description correctly implies this tool needs no input.

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 gives a specific verb ('Lists') and a concrete resource, enumerating the asset types (logos, images, fonts) and noting that ids are returned. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as add_asset or create_brand_kit.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite context (e.g., whether ids returned are meant to feed another tool). Usage is only inferable from the verb 'Lists'.

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