list_assets

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose that no binary content is returned, which sets the response expectation. It is silent on read-only safety, default page size, ordering, and what project_root scoping means, so several behavioral traits remain undisclosed.

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 efficient sentence with the resource and the non-binary constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse for what it omits, but there is no wasted text.

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?

Three parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description is the only channel for guidance — yet it explains neither the project_root scoping requirement nor the limit/pagination behavior, leaving the agent to guess at two of three inputs.

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% and the description adds nothing about any of the three parameters. The 'type' enum is self-explanatory, but 'limit' defaults/caps and especially 'project_root' (no enum, no description, no hint that it scopes which project's assets are listed) are left entirely unexplained in both places.

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 a specific verb ('Lista') plus a precise resource ('metadados de imagens e vídeos gerados pelo MCP') and adds the key scope qualifier 'sem devolver conteúdo binário'. An agent can tell this is a metadata-listing tool rather than a generation or download tool, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'sem devolver conteúdo binário' hints that actual file retrieval belongs to a different tool (likely download_video), but that alternative is never named and no when-to-use condition is stated. Adequate for an obvious listing tool, but it leaves the agent to infer the boundary with siblings.

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