godot_assets

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

The description discloses that import downloads files into res://assets/<provider>/<id>/ and rescans the project filesystem, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false annotations. It does not mention overwrite behavior, network dependency, or auth, but the key side effect of import is clearly stated.

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?

Two sentences carry the full purpose and usage: the first gives the high-level capability, the second breaks down each action with its specific behavior. It is front-loaded, contains no fluff, and every phrase adds information.

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 three actions, two providers, and eight parameters, the description covers the end-to-end workflow well and gives concrete import destination details. It does not describe the return shape of search or import results, and there is no output schema, which is a minor gap for an agent relying on the returned asset id.

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 high (88%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds workflow-level meaning by tying id/provider to preview/import and showing the import path, but it does not significantly elaborate on parameters like format, resolution, or limit beyond what the schema provides.

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 three verbs—search, preview, and import—and the resource (free CC0 3D assets from Poly Haven and ambientCG). It also explains the different purpose of each action, distinguishing this asset-management tool from the sibling godot_* tools.

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 gives a clear workflow: use 'search' to find candidates, 'preview' to choose by sight instead of guessing from an id, and 'import' to download into the project. It does not explicitly compare against alternative sibling tools, but within this tool the action-selection guidance is clear and practical.

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