list_assets

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does almost nothing with it: it does not state that the operation is read-only, that results are paginated via cursor, what an asset record contains, or what happens at the end of a cursor chain. 'Authenticated workspace' gestures at auth scope but adds no real operational detail.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than being genuinely tight. The scope qualifier is front-loaded, which is a plus.

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 paginated read tool this could be adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema there is no structured field carrying the safety profile, return shape, or pagination contract. The description leaves all three unstated.

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?

Both parameters have 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only place semantics could be supplied, and it says nothing about `cursor` or `page_size`. An agent can only guess that cursor means forward pagination and that page_size caps at the schema-declared 100.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List uploaded assets') scoped to the authenticated ElevenLabs workspace, which implicitly distinguishes it from list_generated_assets and from the singular upload_asset/get_asset/delete_asset siblings. However, it never explicitly names those near-identical alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the 'uploaded vs generated' distinction.

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 guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though list_generated_assets is a sibling that an agent could easily confuse with this tool. The only scoping cue is the word 'uploaded', which is never contrasted against 'generated'.

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