get_asset_compression

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the graceful-degradation behavior (does not error on non-textures, returns is_texture=false plus asset_class) and the accepted asset classes. This is exactly the kind of non-error/fallback trait annotations cannot express.

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 purpose, then the type caveat, then the return shape, with no filler. The returns block is list-like and slightly verbose, but it is justified since no output schema exists.

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 present, the description supplies the full return contract plus the fallback semantics and accepted types. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret the response is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds domain meaning by enumerating the accepted asset classes (UTexture2D/UTexture2DArray/UTextureCube/UTextureRenderTarget2D), which tells the agent what a valid asset_path may point at beyond the schema's format hint.

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 (Read) and resource (a TEXTURE's compression settings), names the exact fields returned (TC_* enums, pixel format, LOD group), and explicitly distinguishes itself from set_asset_compression as its inverse. An agent can tell it apart from texture siblings like get_texture_info without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly pairs the tool with its counterpart (set_asset_compression) and gives concrete guidance on handling non-texture assets via the is_texture flag. It falls short of naming when to prefer it over other texture-inspection tools (e.g., get_texture_info), so no full alternatives comparison.

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