ue_describe_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a metadata retrieval operation, shows an exists field for missing assets, and gives a JSON return shape. It does not explicitly state 'read-only/no mutation,' but the verb 'Return' strongly implies a safe query.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses clear Args/Returns sections, a KB pointer, and a usage example. Each section adds practical value without filler or repetition.

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 a single well-documented parameter, a detailed return example, and an output schema available, the description covers everything needed to invoke the tool correctly. The KB pointer and example further reduce ambiguity.

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 0%, so the description must fully document the parameter. It defines asset_path as a Content Browser path and supplies three concrete examples covering common asset types. This is sufficient for an agent to construct a valid argument despite the bare schema.

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 action is clear: return metadata for an asset in the Content Browser. It specifies the resource (asset at a Content Browser path) and explicitly lists the metadata categories (class, disk path, dependencies, editable properties), which separates it from find/search siblings like ue_find_assets_by_class.

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 implies the tool should be used when an agent needs asset metadata at a known Content Browser path, and it provides a KB pointer. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with related tools such as ue_find_assets_by_class, get_actor_identity, or project_get_references, nor does it state when not to use it.

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