List assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It states the basic read-only behavior and the root folder convention, but it does not discuss pagination, return structure, or whether the list is recursive into subfolders. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then a specific detail about folderId, making it easy to scan.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema available), the description covers the essential operation and adds a valuable root-folder note. It doesn't need to explain return values because an output schema exists. Missing details like pagination are minor for a list tool.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explicitly clarifies folderId 0 as root, but it does not explain the 'kind' parameter beyond the self-explanatory enum values in the schema. This partial compensation warrants a mid-range score.

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 and resource: 'List uploaded assets (images/files) and subfolders in an asset folder.' It distinguishes this tool from sibling page/tag tools by focusing on assets, and even clarifies the root folder identifier.

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?

The description provides clear context for use (listing assets by folder) and explains the meaning of folderId 0 as root, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives. This is acceptable for a simple list tool.

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