list_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior, which is useful, but it does not mention that the operation is read-only, whether it returns all asset kinds by default, or any potential performance implications. The purpose hint of 'debugging/exploration' adds some context but is minimal.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with a parenthetical clarifying the intended context. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 having an output schema, the description lacks essential context for correct invocation: it does not explain filtering by kind or pack_id, pagination parameters, or the fact that it lists all assets (which could be a large result). The tool's complexity (nested request object with 4 properties) and zero schema coverage demand a more thorough description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters (kind, page, pack_id, page_size). It mentions pagination generically but provides no detail about how the parameters control behavior, what the kind values mean, or defaults. 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 states the tool lists all assets in the library with pagination, which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_asset and find_asset by emphasizing 'all assets' (전체 자산) and the debugging/exploration intent, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 parenthetical '(디버깅/탐색)' implies the tool is intended for browsing or debugging rather than targeted retrieval, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of find_asset or get_asset, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative tool names.

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