mautic_list_assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the HTTP endpoint and a restatement of parameter names — no pagination behavior, no mention of the MAUTIC_MAX_LIMIT cap or empty-result behavior, and no indication of the response shape.

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?

Two short sentences with the operation front-loaded, which is good structure. However, the second sentence largely duplicates names already present in the schema, so it consumes space without earning it.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the core intent is conveyed. Still, an agent lacks what fields can be ordered on, what 'minimal' does, and what the returned assets look like, so the definition is only minimally sufficient.

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 only 50% (limit, start, search documented; minimal, orderBy, orderByDir not), so the description needs to compensate. Instead it merely echoes parameter names and omits 'minimal' entirely, adding no meaning such as valid orderBy field names or what 'minimal' changes.

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 assets") plus the backing endpoint GET /api/assets, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling mautic_get_asset or explain what an asset is, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 at all: nothing says when to list assets versus fetching one with mautic_get_asset, no pagination strategy (start/limit loop), and no hint about search-string syntax. The agent must infer everything from the parameter names.

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