unreal_asset_import_info

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful context: it never inspects source files, reports missing metadata explicitly, and explicitly lists what it does NOT establish (source availability, DCC units, import quality, texture completeness). This gives agents a clear picture of limitations without overstating capabilities.

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?

Two sentences, both dense with relevant information. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a crucial limitation. No filler or repetition—every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description covers what it does, its constraints, and its limitations. The output schema exists, so return values are presumably documented elsewhere. However, the lack of parameter guidance is a notable gap, making it slightly incomplete for an agent to call correctly without additional context.

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 description makes no mention of the asset_path parameter, and the schema description coverage is 0%. Since the schema only provides type and length constraints, the description should have explained the expected format or semantics (e.g., full path vs. relative). This is a clear gap, as the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of explanation.

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 reads registry import provenance, explicitly noting it uses only source basenames and never inspects source files. This gives a specific verb, resource, and a key behavioral distinction from other tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage by defining its function but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions or exclusions, leaving selection to inference. For a tool with many siblings, this is a moderate gap.

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