get_asset_memory_usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that the return includes derived 'optimization_tips' and optional texture/mesh fields, but says nothing about cost, permissions, or accuracy of the 'estimated' values.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the return structure. The Returns block is verbose but, since no output schema exists, the field list is functional rather than filler; it could be tightened but mostly earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, the description is largely complete: it explains the calculation scope and enumerates the return fields that have no output schema. It lacks only usage routing and any note on estimation methodology.

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% for the single asset_path parameter, and the schema already documents it as 'The path to the asset in the asset registry.' The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, 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 ('Calculates estimated memory usage') and resource ('for an asset'), and clarifies it covers both file size and runtime consumption. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_asset_file_size or get_asset_disk_size, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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 says what the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_memory_usage or analyze_asset_performance. The agent must infer context entirely.

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