validate_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does well by disclosing that the tool is read-only, warn-by-default, skips empty/missing directories, and returns a structured result. Still, it doesn't mention potential edge cases like case-sensitivity or path normalization, so it's very good but not exhaustive.

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 packed with useful detail, including a long enum of asset types, an example, a skip condition, and a return format. While it is long, every segment contributes to understanding, and the structure with a colon and semicolons is easy to follow. It is not wasteful, but slightly dense.

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 description explains the tool's full scope, behavior, and return value ({ ok, warnings[] }). Without an output schema, this is essential. It also notes the complement to validate_references. This is nearly complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema reflects that. The description adds value by explaining what the tool scans, but since there are no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Audit') and resource ('asset-filename integrity across the whole project'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling validate_references by explicitly naming what it checks (file presence) versus id integrity, leaving no ambiguity.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (to catch filename errors before runtime) and explicitly mentions a complementary alternative (validate_references). However, it does not give explicit 'when not to use' guidance or alternatives beyond the one sibling, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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