Get Asset Dependencies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The only behavioral addition is the recursion/dependency semantics, which the schema itself also states via the recursive default. It discloses nothing about output shape, cycle handling, or performance on large graphs.

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 tight sentences plus a short args line; the core purpose is front-loaded and the 'Use when' guidance follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 read-only, fully-annotated, 3-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs to call it correctly: what it returns, that it is recursive by default, and when to reach for it. No meaningful gap remains.

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%, so path, recursive and response_format are already fully documented in the schema. The description merely restates the Args list, adding no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond what the structured field provides — baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List what an asset depends on') and grounds it with concrete examples (textures of a material, scripts of a prefab), which separates it from the sibling unity_list_assets. An agent knows exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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 'Use when:' clause gives two concrete decision contexts — impact analysis before moving/deleting an asset, and diagnosing why a prefab pulls in the project. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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