Assets Get All

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the organizational scope ('in your organization') and the primary purpose, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, filtering capabilities, or result format. This is adequate but minimal beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. It wastes no words, and every phrase adds value (purpose and usage).

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?

Despite good annotations, the description is sparse given the tool's complexity: 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no mention of pagination, filtering, sorting, or result structure. The description only covers the basic list action and a single use case, leaving the agent uninformed about important behavioral and parameter details.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate by explaining the parameters, but it does not mention any of the 7 parameters (limit, types, cursor, sortBy, userId, projectId, searchQuery). The phrase 'video/audio/image' hints at types but does not define the 'types' parameter or any other semantics. This is a significant gap.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List assets (video/audio/image) in your organization.' It also conveys the intended use case ('Use to find an existing assetId'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like assets_get (single asset) without requiring explicit comparison.

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 on when to use the tool: 'Use to find an existing assetId.' This implies the tool is for discovering assets by ID. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when needing a single asset's details versus a list.

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