list_asset_files

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all files' clearly implies a non-destructive read operation and indicates full-result scope, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, or whether files from all versions are included. There is no contradiction with annotations because none exist.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundancy. The action and resource are front-loaded, making it easy to scan and immediately understood.

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 list tool with fully documented parameters, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not clarify the relationship between asset files and file sets, nor does it explain the effect of the optional version_id from a behavioral standpoint. Since there is no output schema, the description also leaves the return shape entirely unspecified.

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 100%, with both asset_id and version_id already described and constrained by UUID format. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 operation ('List') and the resource ('files associated with an asset') in a single, specific sentence. It is easily understood as a read-only listing tool, but it does not distinguish itself from closely related sibling tools like list_asset_file_sets or list_file_set_files, so it stops short of full clarity.

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 such as list_asset_file_sets, list_file_set_files, or get_asset_file. It also does not mention the optional version_id filtering behavior or any exclusion criteria, so an agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

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