get_asset_import_data

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

Annotations already cover the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description earns credit by disclosing the exact payload shape including nested source_files fields and the meaning of source_file as the first resolved filename, which no structured field provides since there is no output schema.

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 core purpose, which is good, but the first sentence enumerates the return fields and the second paragraph repeats the same fields verbatim as a JSON shape. That duplication costs some efficiency even though the exact-shaped return spec is useful in the absence of an output schema.

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 simple, fully-annotated read tool, the description supplies the missing return-value contract (no output schema exists) and the parameter schema handles input. It omits edge behavior such as what source_file/source_files contain when has_import_data is false, which keeps it short of complete.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, including an object-path example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond restating asset_path in the return object, making the baseline 3 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 (Read) and a precise resource (an asset's UAssetImportData), then enumerates what comes back: source filenames and import timestamp. It is unambiguous for an agent, though it never names or distinguishes itself from the nearby interchange_get_asset_import_data sibling.

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 description only says what the tool reads; it gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the asset must exist or be a UAsset), and no pointer to alternative tools for import metadata. Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb.

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