asset_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly lists the returned information (type, bounds, material slots, LOD count), giving the agent a concrete expectation. It does not mention error handling or performance, but for a read-only info tool this is reasonable and adds value beyond the schema.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word earns its place, listing the return content efficiently. It is concise and structured well for quick parsing.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it names the tool's purpose and key return fields. It doesn't provide return format or usage examples, but these are not critical for such a straightforward info tool, making it nearly complete.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'path' parameter, which has a descriptive example (e.g., /Game/Meshes/SM_Cube). The description adds no extra parameter semantic detail, so it meets the baseline of 3 without further compensation.

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 'Return detailed info for a single asset' with a specific verb+resource, and enumerates the exact data returned (type, bounds, material slots, LOD count). It distinguishes itself from sibling asset_list by specifying 'single asset' versus a list.

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 for individual asset inspection by specifying 'single asset' and mentioning detail fields, which contrasts with asset_list. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for one-asset queries.

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