anim_audit_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It prominently declares READ-ONLY, specifies that orphan detection uses the asset registory, and discloses the graph limitation. It does not clarify dryRun, timeout, or editor-interaction semantics, but the read-only scope and boundaries are strongly conveyed.

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 with high information density and no filler. The READ-ONLY scope, resource, and the Blueprint boundary are front-loaded, and every clause carries audit-specific detail that an agent needs.

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 complex read-only audit with five parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough to select and invoke it correctly: skeleton input, searchPath scope, and the exact asset categories returned. It does not specify return structure or the operational effects of dryRun/editor flags, but those are secondary to the core purpose and boundaries.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for skeleton (audit target) and searchPath (scope of the audit), which are useful, but leaves dryRun, timeoutSeconds, and allowWithEditorOpen completely unexplained. This is a partial compensation with a clear gap around the operational parameters.

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 names a specific verb ('audit') and resource (animation assets for a skeleton), then enumerates the exact asset categories covered and the orphan-detection goal. It self-differentiates from generic sibling tools by declaring 'READ-ONLY' and by explicitly excluding the state-machine graph, which is not part of this tool.

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?

It clearly states when to use the tool: for an animation audit of a skeleton across a search path. It also provides an explicit when-not and alternative: the state-machine graph is Blueprint territory and should be audited via the live UnrealClaude plugin, not headless.

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