list_generated_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. "List" weakly implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, but the description says nothing about result size, ordering, pagination, or whether it reflects disk state or registry state. For a tool with zero structured behavioral hints this is a substantial gap.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently written, though the brevity comes at the cost of the detail scored in other dimensions.

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?

The tool is structurally simple (no params, no output schema), but the description still omits what the list actually returns (file paths, IDs, metadata?) and how the results relate to list_assets/get_asset. With no annotations and no output schema to fall back on, the description should do more to make the tool callable with confidence.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning the description could have added. Nothing is missing on this dimension.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("List local files recorded in the asset registry"), which is better than a bare restatement of the name. However, siblings list_assets, get_asset, delete_asset and upload_asset exist, and the description never explains how a "generated asset" differs from a plain "asset" or why this registry is separate. The agent must guess which of the two list tools to call.

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 at all: no prerequisites, no mention of when to prefer this over list_assets, and no indication of what the caller should do next (e.g. get_asset, download). The agent must infer routing from the tool name alone.

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