unreal_asset_dependencies

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds valuable behavioral nuance: it is one-hop only, and the results are evidence of references rather than guarantees of cook/load success. The caution about reading truncation and registry-loading flags is beyond what annotations provide, enriching the agent's understanding of potential edge cases.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose and scope, and the second adds a crucial caution. It is front-loaded and each sentence carries meaning without unnecessary verbosity. The structure is clear and easy to scan.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description explains the tool's behavior and limitations well, but parameter semantics are sparse, leaving the agent to infer the meaning of category and direction. For a tool with 5 parameters, the description could be more complete, though it covers the essential usage context and caveats.

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 only mentions pagination, giving some meaning to limit/offset, but does not explain asset_path, category, or direction. The enum values for category and direction are left to the schema names, which may be ambiguous. This is a significant gap given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 inspects one-hop asset registry references with pagination, and explicitly notes it does not perform recursive loads or edits. This precisely identifies the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that may do deeper analysis or modifications.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (one-hop inspection) and what it explicitly avoids (recursive loads, edits). It also gives interpretive guidance about registry dependencies being evidence rather than proof, and advises checking truncation and flags. While it doesn't name specific alternative tools, the scope restrictions effectively guide the agent away from misuse.

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