analyze_asset_performance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and side-effect profile is fully covered. The description adds only the analysis scope (geometry/textures/materials), not behavioral traits like cost, depth of inspection, or whether it touches disk.

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 prose is one tight sentence and the return shape is front-loaded as an explicit field list. The returns block is verbose but justified since no output schema exists to carry that information.

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 one-parameter read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the definition is largely complete: it states the analyzed dimensions and enumerates every returned field. It falls short only on routing guidance relative to the many performance/optimization siblings.

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 coverage is 100% and there is a single, fully documented parameter (asset_path), so the schema carries the load. The description adds nothing about path format or registry semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Analyzes an asset's performance characteristics') and scopes it to geometry, textures, and material complexity. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like analyze_assets_performance_batch, check_asset_optimization, or suggest_asset_optimizations.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the batch variant or the optimization-checking siblings. The agent must infer that this is the single-asset counterpart to the batch tool purely from the name.

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