spatial_resolve_project_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states this is a local planner, scores candidate /Game assets, emits asset_overrides_json, and hands unresolved props to a guarded Tripo planner. It does not fully clarify whether any external generation or mutation is triggered as a side effect, but the main behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and follows with a concise pipeline explanation, a relevant example, and a knowledge-base pointer. Every sentence 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?

The narrative covers the tool's role, inputs, output, and downstream hand-off, and an output schema exists for return shape. However, with no annotations and minimal schema descriptions, the missing parameter details and prerequisites leave an agent to infer important configuration options.

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 compensate. It gives meaning to composition_plan_json, candidate_asset_paths, and the project asset catalog, and the example clarifies a typical invocation, but limit, minimum_score, max_candidates_per_prop, and include_resolved_existing remain unexplained.

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 opening sentence names the precise action and resource: resolve planned spatial props against existing project assets. The body adds the pipeline role, scoring behavior, and emitted output (asset_overrides_json), clearly distinguishing it from cataloging and Tripo generation siblings.

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 'first' instruction and the hand-off to the guarded Tripo batch planner define where this tool fits in the workflow. It clearly implies the need for a composition/screenshot reconstruction and an asset catalog, though it does not explicitly list when to prefer sibling tools such as spatial_catalog_project_assets or spatial_prepare_tripo_generation_batch.

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