list_assistants

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and return type, missing critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, how results are paginated or sorted, and any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 brief with two sentences, but the second sentence about the return value is somewhat redundant since it doesn't add meaningful structure (e.g., it vaguely states 'Dict[str, Any]: List of assistants' without clarifying the format). It could be more front-loaded and efficient, but it avoids excessive verbosity.

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 complexity of listing resources (which often involves pagination, filtering, or authentication) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like how results are returned, error conditions, or usage constraints, making it incomplete for effective tool invocation.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool, earning a high baseline score for not adding unnecessary information.

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 action ('List all AI Assistants') and specifies the resource ('AI Assistants'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_assistant' or 'create_assistant' beyond the basic verb, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_assistant' (for retrieving a specific assistant) or 'create_assistant' (for creating new ones). It lacks any context about prerequisites, such as whether authentication is required or if there are filtering options.

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