describe_asset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions using Gemini 2.5 Flash, implying external API calls and potential rate limits or costs, but doesn't explicitly state these. It doesn't describe what 'describe' entails (e.g., returns text analysis, metadata extraction), error handling, or performance characteristics.

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 states the core purpose upfront. It could be slightly more structured by separating the action from the technology detail, but it's appropriately sized with no wasted words.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a text description, structured data), how Gemini integration works, or any behavioral nuances. Given the complexity of asset analysis and external API use, more context is needed.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'asset_type' values are valid, how 'filename' relates to the project, or why 'api_key' is optional). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Analyze and describe') and the target resource ('an existing RPG Maker MZ asset'), and mentions the technology used ('using Gemini 2.5 Flash'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_assets' or 'generate_asset', which could cause confusion about when to use each.

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 like 'analyze_assets' (which might analyze multiple assets) or 'generate_asset' (which creates new assets). It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases beyond the basic function.

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