generate_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 the AI model used ('Gemini 2.5 Flash') which is useful context, but doesn't describe what happens operationally: where files are saved, whether existing files are overwritten, what permissions are needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what the tool returns. For a generative tool with external API calls and file operations, this is insufficient.

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 communicates the core function. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation. The parenthetical examples help clarify scope without being verbose. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the technology specification from the function.

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 generative tool with external API integration, file system operations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after generation (where files are saved, what format they're in, what the tool returns), doesn't mention error handling for API failures or invalid paths, and provides no guidance on the relationship between parameters like how 'project_path' interacts with 'filename'. With no annotations and complex behavior, 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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'characters, faces, tilesets, etc.' which aligns with the 'asset_type' enum values, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, constraints, or usage patterns. 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 tool's purpose: 'Generate RPG Maker MZ asset using Gemini 2.5 Flash' with examples of asset types. It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('RPG Maker MZ asset'), and technology used ('Gemini 2.5 Flash'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its closest sibling 'generate_asset_batch' - both involve asset generation, though this one appears to be for single assets.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'generate_asset_batch' (for batch operations) or 'describe_asset' (for analysis rather than generation). There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate 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.