list_asset_keyframes

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

There are no annotations, so the description is the only signal about side effects. 'List all...' clearly indicates a read-only enumeration, which is useful, but it omits pagination, ordering, return shape, and any auth nuance. The behavior is not misleading, just underspecified.

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?

One short sentence with the verb and object front-loaded. Every word earns its place; there is no filler, repetition, or restating of the schema.

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?

With only two parameters and one required, the schema plus the description give enough to make a correct call: asset_id identifies the asset, and version_id is optional. The absence of an output schema means the return entry shape is not documented, but that is not necessary to invoke the tool. More detail on what a keyframe entry contains would improve completeness.

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%: asset_id is documented as 'The asset UUID' and version_id as 'Filter by version (optional)'. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('List all') on a specific resource ('keyframes/thumbnails') scoped to an asset. This makes it easy to distinguish from the singular get_asset_keyframe and from get_keyframe_public_url, which serve different purposes.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The agent must infer from sibling names that get_asset_keyframe should be used for a single keyframe, and no alternative is mentioned for version filtering.

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