Check module assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: it inspects m.Assets entries specifically, distinguishes present files from missing ones, and notes that expected paths are surfaced in the report — a useful disclosure of output shape for a diagnostic tool.

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?

A single dense sentence with the operation front-loaded and zero filler; every clause (parse targets, existence split, expected paths) contributes information. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the report contents (present vs missing files, with expected paths). Single fully documented parameter plus read-only annotations means little else is needed; only error/edge-case behavior for an unresolvable target is unstated.

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 100% for the single 'target' parameter, so the schema already carries its meaning; the baseline of 3 applies. The description only tangentially narrows the target to a module's asset table and adds no format examples or fallback behavior for an invalid module name.

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 pairs specific verbs (parse, report) with a precise resource (a module's m.Assets entries) and even names the asset types and directory (.anim/.mp3 under Content/), so the operation is unambiguous. It stops short of the top mark because it never differentiates itself from adjacent diagnostics such as reanim_validate_module, reanim_check_movesets, or reanim_check_dances.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no prerequisite (e.g., run after reanim_list_modules or before enabling a module), no statement of when this check matters versus validate_module, and no exclusions. The only guidance is what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer its role.

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