get_asset_disk_size

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description does add useful behavior beyond that: it resolves the package name to a real file path and stats it, implying the result reflects the file on disk rather than a loaded asset, and the exists_on_disk field signals the file may be missing.

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?

Two tight sentences with the operation stated first, followed by the return shape. The implementation note (FPackageName/IFileManager) is mildly internal but still compact; nothing is padded.

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?

Because there is no output schema, inlining the return object (package_name, file_path, size_bytes/kb/mb, exists_on_disk, message) fills the most important gap for a single-parameter read tool. The only real shortfall is the missing distinction from the sibling get_asset_file_size.

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 parameter is already documented with an example in the schema, so the description adds no new parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 applies when the schema does all the parameter work.

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 ('get the on-disk file size of an asset's package'), plus the exact file types (.uasset/.umap), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from the near-identical sibling get_asset_file_size, leaving an agent to guess which of the two to call.

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 when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With sibling tools like get_asset_file_size, get_asset_memory_usage, and get_asset_compression present, the absence of routing guidance is a concrete gap rather than a minor omission.

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