List assets

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: newest-first ordering, urls are freshly signed (i.e., time-limited), and the account quota is 2000 assets / 20 GB, plus it is 'Free'. The only weakness is the unclear 'pending'/'usage' clauses, which muddy rather than clarify behavior.

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?

Purpose and return fields are front-loaded, which is good, but the whole thing is a single run-on semicolon chain, and the final two clauses about pending/usage do not earn their place because they correspond to nothing in the schema.

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 description correctly enumerates the returned fields and ordering, which is the essential missing piece. It also covers pagination and quota, so an agent can call it correctly; only the limit parameter and the dangling pending/usage references are left unclear.

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 only 25% (only cursor is documented), so the description must compensate. It partially does by explaining that role and kind are filters and that cursor takes the previous page's next_cursor, but it never explains 'limit' (range 1-100) or clarifies what 'pending'/'usage' would map to, despite those not existing in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the assets of this account') plus scope details an agent can act on: newest-first ordering and the exact fields returned (signed url, role, name, size, content_digest). This clearly separates it from get_asset, create_asset, and the other asset siblings.

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?

It does tell the agent how to filter (role, kind) and how to paginate ('pass next_cursor as cursor for the next page'), which is real guidance. However, the trailing sentences about 'pending' and 'usage' reference no corresponding parameter and no sibling tool, so they add ambiguity rather than routing guidance, and no alternative tool is named explicitly.

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