analyze_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool will 'analyze', 'detect', 'find', and 'generate', it doesn't clarify important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it modifies data, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that packs multiple functions into a clear statement. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose, though it could potentially benefit from breaking down the four distinct functions more explicitly for clarity.

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?

Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to compensate. While it outlines the tool's functions, it doesn't explain what 'optimization recommendations' might look like, how 'unused assets' are determined, or what format the analysis results take. For a tool with this complexity and no structured output documentation, the description is insufficient.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'project_path' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about this parameter beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verbs (analyze, detect, find, generate) and resources (project assets), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'analyze_project_structure' or 'describe_asset', which could have overlapping functionality.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that might analyze or describe assets (e.g., 'analyze_project_structure', 'describe_asset'), there's no indication of when this specific analysis tool is appropriate or what makes it different from those options.

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