open_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It fails to explain what 'open' entails (e.g., focuses editor, selects asset, any state changes), leaving the agent uninformed about side effects or read-only status.

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 sentence with examples, which is concise and to the point. However, it is overly brief for a tool with no annotations and low schema coverage, potentially sacrificing needed detail.

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 the tool's complexity (opening assets in an editor) and numerous siblings, the description lacks completeness: no indication of success/failure behavior, no clarification of asset path requirements, and no mention of the output schema that exists.

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 only parameter, asset_path, has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning, such as expected format, valid extensions, or examples, beyond the parameter name.

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 explicitly states 'Open an asset in the UE5 editor' with a clear verb ('open') and resource ('asset'), and lists examples (blueprint, material, data table, widget, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_assets or list_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 implies that the tool should be used when wanting to open an asset in the editor, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or error conditions.

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