swebsy_list_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds valuable non-obvious context by stating that reference checks span 'every page, shared symbols, styles, and site settings,' clarifying how usage counts are computed. It does not mention output shape or pagination, but as a listing tool it is reasonably transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: the main action and output, the reference-checking semantics, and a practical filter tip. No redundant or filler wording is present.

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 2-boolean listing tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, counting semantics, and a concrete use case, which is nearly complete. It is slightly lacking in that it does not describe the returned asset object shape or any ordering/pagination behavior, but those are modest gaps for this 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?

The schema already describes both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by advising the specific filter combination 'imagesOnly:true and unusedOnly:true' for the deletion workflow, which is not present 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('managed assets'), a scope ('in the open site'), and an output trait ('whole-project usage counts'). This makes it easy to tell apart from sibling listing tools like list_blocks or list_pages, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 a concrete usage scenario: 'Use imagesOnly:true and unusedOnly:true before deleting unused gallery images.' This tells the agent when to use the tool with specific filters, but it does not say when to prefer an alternative tool or when not to use this tool.

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