asset_load_diagnostics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it triggers any side effects (e.g., loading assets, compiling classes), or whether it has any prerequisites. The description only lists topics it covers, so an agent would be unaware of the tool's operational footprint.

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 concise sentence with a front-loaded verb and a series of concrete diagnostic areas. It avoids fluff and communicates its scope efficiently. However, it is somewhat of a list without additional structure, so it does not reach the level of the most polished examples.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, so the description must carry significant contextual weight. It only offers a brief list of diagnostic subjects and lacks information about return values, usage examples, or how results are presented. For an agent to invoke this tool correctly, more context is needed about what 'diagnose' produces and when it is appropriate.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it mentions categories like 'dependencies' and 'referencers' which map to include_dependencies and include_referencers, but it does not clarify their values, defaults, or interactions. The schema already provides adequate descriptions, so no significant value is added.

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 uses the specific verb 'Diagnose' and lists distinct diagnostic areas (asset loads, Blueprint generated classes, dependencies, referencers, script class availability), making it clear this is a diagnostic tool. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like asset_info or asset_list by focusing on load/class/dependency issues rather than general asset information or listing.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about appropriate scenarios. The only implicit indication is the verb 'Diagnose', which weakly suggests troubleshooting but does not clarify when this should be preferred over sibling tools like asset_info or blueprint_info.

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