check_asset_optimization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation reports issues and recommendations and enumerates the returned fields, which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about thresholds, per-asset-class standards, or cost of the check.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose sentence, followed by a compact return-shape listing that earns its place given there is no output schema. The inline return type block is dense but functional; nothing is redundant filler.

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 no output schema, the inline return shape usefully compensates and covers asset_class, is_optimized, issues, recommendations and optional LOD/texture/geometry fields. What remains missing is the meaning of 'optimization standards' (per-class thresholds, whether the check is static or inspects the current editor state).

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?

There is a single parameter (asset_path) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about path format, registry scoping, or behavior when the asset is missing, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Checks if an asset meets optimization standards' and enumerates what is returned. This is clearly distinct from a bare 'check' or 'audit' tool. However, it never names or contrasts with nearby siblings such as suggest_asset_optimizations or analyze_asset_performance, so the agent must infer the split.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool is mentioned. The description does not tell the agent whether this is the right tool versus suggest_asset_optimizations (which presumably proposes fixes) or analyze_asset_performance (which measures performance); the guidance is entirely implicit.

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