get_assets_metadata_batch

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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive). The description adds real context beyond them: it runs get_asset_metadata per entry, inherits its path semantics, returns a per-entry error string on failure, and honors a truncation cap. That is meaningful disclosure for a no-annotation-burden read tool.

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: the batch purpose comes first, then usage routing, then the path caveat, then a structured Returns block. It is long but each part serves a distinct function; the Returns enumeration is the only mildly verbose element.

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 supplies the return shape (requested_count, processed_count, results_truncated, per-entry fields and error). For a two-parameter read tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 schema already documents both asset_paths and max_results, including the /Game/ prefix rule and the cap/truncation behavior. The description largely restates this ('entries must be paths RELATIVE to /Game, never bare names'), adding emphatic rationale rather than new semantics. Baseline 3 is 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+resource ('read the Asset Registry tags of N assets') and frames it precisely as the batch variant of get_asset_metadata, with the key scope differentiator (one round-trip instead of N calls). It names the sibling get_assets_by_names, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either 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 says when to use it (batch tag reads in a single round-trip) and routes the agent to the alternative for a different need ('Use get_assets_by_names for identity/type info from bare NAMES instead of tags'). The path-format trap is also called out as a usage precondition.

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