shelf_list_assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that structured data: no pagination behavior, no default page size, no note on how search matches fields, and no indication of result shape. With annotations carrying the safety burden, the description still fails to add the contextual traits an agent would benefit from.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler, so it is efficiently sized. But brevity here reads as under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness — nothing is wasted because almost nothing is said.

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 6-parameter list/search tool with no output schema and a dense sibling set, the definition is too thin. Key agent-relevant details — default paging, how search and status filters combine, when to prefer shelf_available_assets — are all absent, leaving the agent to infer behavior from the schema alone.

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 83%, above the 80% threshold, so the schema documents page, orgId, search, perPage, and myCustody on its own — baseline 3 applies. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning; notably the 'status' enum carries no description in either place, which the prose could have clarified but does not.

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 gives a verb ('Search/list') and a resource ('assets') scoped to the workspace, so the basic intent is graspable. However, it conflates two distinct operations and offers no differentiation from siblings like shelf_available_assets, shelf_get_asset, or shelf_lookup_code that also surface assets. 'Search/list assets' leaves the agent guessing which sibling is the right one.

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 statement, no mention of the alternative shelves (e.g., shelf_available_assets for availability-filtered listings), and no prerequisites such as org context. The single sentence simply restates the capability without routing guidance, which is exactly the gap the sibling landscape makes costly.

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