find_placeholders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing, but says nothing about return shape, whether results are paginated, how 'placeholder' is determined, or whether an unscanned project yields empty results or an error — all relevant for a tool whose scope depends on prior scanning.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose and scope come first. It is efficient, though terse enough that the brevity costs information elsewhere.

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 simple one-parameter read tool this description covers only intent; it omits the scan prerequisite, the meaning of 'project', and expected results. With no annotations and no output schema to lean on, more context is needed before an agent could call it confidently.

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 single 'project' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. It is unclear whether 'project' refers to a scanned project name, defaults sensibly, or is required in practice despite the default of 'default' — the description does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it lists placeholder/temp assets scoped to 'the scanned game project' with the intent of replacement. This distinguishes it from generic listing, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling list_assets, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 phrase 'found in the scanned game project' implies scan_game_project must run first, but that prerequisite is never stated as a condition. There is no guidance on when to choose this over list_assets or how it relates to asset_requirements; the agent must infer everything.

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