spatial_catalog_project_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses read-only behavior, scope (/Game folders), default candidate classes, and the purpose of avoiding generation. It does not mention any side effects, rate limits, or permission requirements, but for a read-only query that is acceptable.

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?

The description is under 150 words, front-loads the core purpose, and includes a practical example. The KB reference adds value without bloat.

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?

The description adequately explains the tool's role in the spatial pipeline, and the output schema exists so return details are not required. However, the parameter documentation gap and lack of alternative differentiation leave some missing context for an agent evaluating when to call this tool.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only covers folders, query, and class_names via the example, leaving limit, include_bounds, include_selected, and include_resolver_handoff undocumented. This is a significant gap for a tool with 7 parameters.

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?

The description clearly states the tool catalogs project assets for spatial composition matching, names the output format (asset_catalog_json), and names the downstream consumer (spatial_resolve_project_assets). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling asset-finding tools, but the specific pipeline role is clear.

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?

It implies usage for preferring existing project content before generation, and shows an example. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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