texture_audit_memory

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. The verb 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation and the field list suggests no mutation, but the description does not explicitly confirm side-effect-free behavior, asset-loading requirements, or failure conditions. This is adequate but not rich.

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 and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by a one-parameter args block, a KB pointer, and a concrete example. Every line adds useful information with no filler.

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 inspection tool with an output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: the target resource type, the inspected properties, the parameter meaning, and an example. It loses one point because it omits guidance about when this tool is the right choice among related inspect/audit siblings.

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 for the schema's bare string type. It does so by explaining texture_path as the 'Texture2D asset path to audit' and providing a concrete valid example path, fully disambiguating the parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Inspect') and a specific resource ('Texture2D'), then lists the exact attributes covered: size, compression, streaming flags, mips, and memory estimate. This clearly distinguishes it from texture-generation or material-audit 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 description gives an example invocation and a KB reference, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ue_describe_asset or mesh_audit_uv_channels. No exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling routing guidance are provided.

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