fmod_Asset_getAssetPath

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the return value (path relative to assets directory) but fails to disclose side effects, error behavior (e.g., if asset not found), permissions, or any other behavioral traits. The schema already defines the input, so added value is minimal.

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 repeats the same sentence verbatim and appends a bracketed method reference that may not be useful to an AI agent. While only two sentences, the redundancy makes it slightly verbose. Could be more concise.

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?

Despite low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description does not specify the return format, error handling, or behavior for invalid inputs. This leaves the agent unsure about how to parse the result or handle failures, making it incomplete.

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 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It does not explain the 'target' parameter beyond what the schema already provides (path or guid). No new meaning is added, earning the baseline score.

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 identifies the tool's function: retrieving the asset's path relative to the project assets directory. It distinguishes from the sibling fmod_Asset_getAbsoluteAssetPath by specifying 'relative', and mentions the return type (path). The repetition does not harm clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like fmod_Asset_getAbsoluteAssetPath or fmod_Bank_getPath. The description does not include prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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