List game asset sources

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields (e.g., enablement state, local index state), which helps the agent anticipate output. It does not cover potential edge cases like pagination or consistency guarantees, but for a zero-parameter listing, these are minor gaps.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('List') and enumerates the key output fields. Every word is informative; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity (zero params, no output schema, strong annotations), the description covers the purpose and return values well. It could explicitly state that it returns all available sources, but the lack of filtering parameters strongly implies this. Overall, it is nearly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema has no parameters (100% schema coverage). The description does not need to add param info. By the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate. No additional meaning is provided beyond the schema, but none is required.

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 uses the verb 'List' and specifies the exact fields returned (provider ids, supported asset kinds, enablement state, etc.), clearly differentiating from siblings like get_game_asset (single item retrieval) and search_game_assets (filtered search).

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 implies usage for retrieving asset source metadata, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context signals and sibling names provide implicit guidance, but direct usage context is absent.

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