scan_project_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully describes the tool's behavior: scanning files, building an index, and returning metadata and file listings. It implies read-only operation and no side effects, which is transparent enough for an agent.

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 three succinct sentences: first states the action and purpose, second details the return values, third gives usage context. No unnecessary words, highly efficient.

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?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool returns and when to use it. It could explicitly mention read-only nature, but that is implied. Overall, it is complete for a parameterless 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?

The tool has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's output and usage.

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 scans the img/ folder and Tilesets.json to build an asset index, and specifies the returned metadata (tileset dimensions, tile counts, autotile kinds) and categorized tiles. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_tileset_image or get_tilesets by providing a comprehensive scan.

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 explicitly recommends using the tool 'before creating maps to get tilesetConfig for better tile layouts,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent.

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