get_asset_bundle_data

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

Annotations already declare the read-only/idempotent safety profile, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: no asset load occurs, and a missing asset or bundle-less asset returns an empty list rather than an error. That edge-case disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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-loads the verb and resource, then the behavior, then the return shape in two sentences plus a compact Returns line. The Returns line partially restates fields already enumerated in sentence one, a minor redundancy, but there is no 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 description carries the return-shape burden and does it well by naming bundle_name, asset_paths, num_assets, bundle_count and asset_found. Combined with the edge-case note and the read-only annotations, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly.

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% and the single asset_path param is already fully documented in the schema (full object path including object name). The description adds no path-format guidance beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource (read the AssetBundles tag of one asset from the Asset Registry) and adds a meaningful scope qualifier ('without loading it'). It does not explicitly differentiate from the close sibling get_asset_bundle_entry, so an agent must infer the distinction, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'without loading it' implies when this is preferable (cheap metadata read versus loading the asset), and the empty-list behavior is stated. However, it never names an alternative tool or states an explicit condition for choosing this over get_asset_bundle_entry, so routing guidance is only implied.

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