validate_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It details the scanning scope, the order of checking (project Graphics/Audio, then RTP path), and the outcome (reports missing files), providing rich context about what the tool does and how.

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 dense sentence that packs a lot of detail without fluff. It is not overly long and front-loads the core action, but it could be slightly more structured by separating the scanning logic and the outcome into distinct sentences.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the purpose, scope, and useful motivation ('silent until runtime'). It does not specify the exact return format or prerequisites, but given the simplicity of the tool, it is adequately 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?

The only parameter (includeMaps) is fully documented in the schema with a description and default value, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('scan') and names the exact resource categories (tilesets, audio, autotiles, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like validate_connectivity or verify_tileset. It states the purpose of reporting missing files, making it unambiguous.

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 when to use it ('Catches broken references that are otherwise silent until runtime') and clarifies it checks project files first, then RTP. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the full 'when-to-use-vs-not' guidance.

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